CATALOGUE OF
LATE ROMAN COINS
IN THE
IDI EAVESY-U UNO) mt O)-W eco O10) KOU W LO)
AND IN THE
WHITTEMORE COLLECTION
[ebxedente-@aer-leblercme bale aleyaleyaiers
to the Accession of Anastasius
Philip Grierson
Melinda Mays
DUMBARTON OAKS
RESEARCH LIBRARY AND COLLECTION
WASHINGTON, DC
TT aS
SS -
SS
reer op pe pam ap ae ae = _—-~ ~~ So ——— —= St => Ss -- ——— = = — =. J ~
TE SS SSS aS SSS = Se os Se ered = ee = SES SSE a2 SST SS SEE SS SS SS SS ES SSeS Re
25 SSS SSS Sa = = — =a SS
a4 ee = SS SS SS Se ee SES SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS. SSeS SE
SS SSS t <= = SSS = TIS SSS SS SS RS ae SIS
SSS SSS SSS SaaS SSS = == SSS SSS SSS SSS SS SSS
TS A = Ao SSS SSS aT ESS Se =e
So SSS SS Sr ea SSS SSS SSE
SS SS SS ee = SS SSS SSS SS SSS SSS Se
SSS SSS PS BS eae eee SSS $2 eS SEE
ee eae SS SS SS SSS SS SSS SS eS SSS. ==
SS SSS SSS See SSS = oe Sree ar ee
SEES ESS SS == == eee ==> = SS SS EE ESS SS
SS SSE : = SS ss. = SS SSS SSE Seer pacer ee SSS SSS
= 5 = ADS = = = =< — SS SS SSS SSS SS SSS
SSA SSE EE ee = <= ee ES aS eS SSS SS SSS SE Se
SSS eee ee Se ee eS :
SSS So SS SSS THES
SSS SSS SSS SSS SSS — SSS SS SSS $= =
SS a I SE a
* SSS SES seer SS SSS SSS Se SER SS SSS ES —- = SSS SS
SSS SSS SSS SS SS SS SSS SS SSS SaaS SS = BSS SESE SES ee
ee SSeS SSS SSS SSeS Se SlSsse <= WSS SS ESS SS
SSS SS SS = FSS ES = ee LSS ISS
SESS <a a Se SIE Sa SSS SS
SS ————S—EE = Ss SSS = =, = SERSSSSS: = = WSS SSS SE
SSIS SS SESS See = = SSS SSS = oe SSS SSS SS SSS =
SSS SSE SSS SSS ee SaaS SS SESS Sit Tt SS SSS SSeS
SSeS SS ea SSS SSS SSS = SSS ES
a ES SSS SS SES SS SS Se SSS
Sn SS SSE SSS SS SSS SaaS SS Sas Se
= 5S SST SoS SSS SSS = = ee aS
SS SSS SSS
TST SSS SESS = RSE SSS SSS SS SS SSS SS a SESS
SS SS SSS SSS SESS a == Sears Se SSS: SES ee SoS SS
a a a a a SS SS SS SS ESE SES SSS SSS SSS
SS SSS SSS SaaS SS ss SSS ESS FEES ee SSS SS SSS
(SHS SSE EE ESTEE SS SS SSS aS SS SSS =S SSS
Sa a a a a a SS SS SS (SS SS SS SS
ss a a OS = SS SES SSS SES
oe SSS See SSS SSS See SSeS See a
= =5 =:
SSS SS SS SSS SSS Se
= SS
= => SS Se
SS SS SS SS Ss SSS SSS DIRS SSS = Sa SSS SSS ES SSE
SSS SSS EES a a Sa SSF = WAL SSS RSS
Sa rE SS SS SSS SSS ESS —= ASS RS SF SS SSS SSIES
SSS SSS SSE Se ee = SoS SSS SESS SSE SSS SSS ES Ss =
SS as SSS SSS SSS SSE = SSS SS FS SSS = ss
8S eee SSS SSS SSS SSS SS eS SES TSS SSS FSS ee
as Sas oS a ee a SS SSS SSS = Se SSS SE SES SSIS Sara A eS SEES
eens Was SS Se SSS SSS SES SS SSS SEES oS a = cose, Se ==
SHES Se = : = SSS SSS =
SS SSS SSS aes SSS SSS SESS ee pe eS TSS SSS
aS SSS SSS <— SS ee SS eS SS ae —— SA PFS a SSS
a a a SSS SSS
SS a a SSS SSE Se SS SS 2CSS =: 33S SSS SS
= SS = = SSS SS SS SSS See a SSS SS SSS SSS SS SASS
= = FSS Ta SS SSS SSS SEES
SSS SSS SSS SSS EE EE
———— Sea, =< = = SSeS FSS ——
SS SSeS SS SS = aaa ee SS SSS SS
———
torrent
re red
SIS
SSS eee
== SSeS
= Wee ee eS SES
"= SSS
Oe eee a ee =
eas tote oo
SSS SSS
eed —_
——
se
ee
Spat eeeewed
Seta
er eer tat
SSS
DUMBARTON OAKS CATALOGUES
CATALOGUE OF LATE ROMAN COINS
IN THE
DUMBARTON OAKS COLLECTION
AND IN THE
WHITTEMORE COLLECTION
CATALOGUE
OF
LATE ROMAN COINS
IN THE
DUMBARTON OAKS COLLECTION
AND IN THE
WHITTEMORE COLLECTION
From Arcadius and Honorius
to the Accession of Anastasius
PHILIP GRIERSON
and
MELINDA MAYS
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection
Washington, D.C.
©1992 Dumbarton Oaks
Trustees for Harvard University
Washington, D.C.
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in Publication Data
Dumbarton Oaks.
Catalogue of late Roman coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and
in the Whittemore Collection : from Arcadius and Honorius to the
accession of Anastasius / Philip Grierson and Melinda Mays.
p. cm.— (Dumbarton Oaks catalogues)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-88402-193-9
1. Coins, Roman—Catalogs. 2. Dumbarton Oaks—Catalogs.
I. Grierson, Philip. II. Mays, Melinda. III. Title. IV. Title:
Late Roman coins. V. Title: Whittemore Collection. VI. Series.
CJ815.U62W184 1992
737.4937074'753—dc20 91-12862
CONTENTS
Foreword 1X
Abbreviations and Norms of Reference Xli
List of Tables XIV
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE COINAGE
1. Historical and Numismatic Background 3
A. The Divided Empire 3
B. The Right to Coin 6
(1) Imperial Coins 6; (2) Coins of Empresses 6; (3) Coins of
Caesars 8
C. General Features of the Coinage 9
D. Hoards and Coin Finds 15
(1) Gold Hoards 16; (2) Silver Hoards 17; (3) Bronze Hoards 21
2. The Monetary System Q7
A. Values and Denominations 4
B. Metrology and Fineness 28
C. Gold Coinage 32
D. Silver Coinage 35
E. Bronze Coinage 39
3. Mints and Mint Activity 48
A. Organization and Control 48
B. Mint-Marks and Privy Marks 53
C. Mints 56
D. Counterfeits and Supplementary Coinages 69
4. Types and Inscriptions 73
A. Obverse and Reverse 73
B. Obverse Types 73
C. Obverse Inscriptions 77
D. Reverse Types 78
(1) Imperial Types 78; (2) Victory Types 81; (3) Roma and
Constantinopolis Types 82; (4) Miscellaneous Types 84
CONTENTS
E. Reverse Inscriptions
F. Accessory Symbols
G. Epigraphy
Il. THE EMPERORS AND THEIR COINS
A. Eastern Emperors
Arcadius (383—408)
Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius (400—4)
Theodosius II (402—50)
Pulcheria, sister of Theodosius II (414—53)
Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II (423—60)
Marcian (450—57)
Leo I (457-74)
Verina, wife of Leo I (457-84)
Leo II and Zeno (474)
Zeno, first sole reign (474-5)
Ariadne, wife of Zeno (474?—515)
Basiliscus (475—6)
Zenonis, wife of Basiliscus (475—6)
Zeno, restored (476-91)
Leontius, pretender in the East (484-8)
B. Western Emperors
Honorius (393-423)
Constantine III, pretender in Gaul (407-11)
Constans (II), son of Constantine III, in Gaul (410-11)
Maximus, pretender in Spain (409-11, ca. 420 ?)
Jovinus, pretender in Gaul (411-13)
Sebastian, brother of Jovinus, in Gaul (412-13)
Priscus Attalus, pretender in Italy (409-10, in Gaul 415-16)
Anonymous AE 4 Coinage of Carthage
Constantius III (421)
John (423-5)
Galla Placidia, wife of Constantius III (421—50)
Valentinian III (425—55)
Justa Grata Honoria, sister of Valentinian III (426?—450?)
Licinia Eudoxia, wife of Valentinian III (439-—ca. 490)
85
87
88
93
133
136
152
155
157
161
170
172
174
176
177
180
181
190
192
214
218
219
220
22]
222
224
ze
227
229
233
242
244
CONTENTS
Petronius Maximus (455)
Avitus (455-6)
Majorian (457-61)
Severus III (461—5)
Anthemius (467-72)
Euphemia, wife of Anthemius (467-72?)
Olybrius (472)
Glycerius (473-4)
Julius Nepos (474-80)
Romulus “Augustulus,” usurper (475-6)
APPENDIXES
1. Imperial Consulships, 380-479
2. Abbreviations in Coin Legends
3. Gold Coin Hoards
4. Forgeries
BIBLIOGRAPHY
III. CATALOGUE OF THE COINS
Background to the Collections and List of Previous Owners,
Donors, and Dealers
Presentation of the Catalogue and Plates
Catalogue: Plates 1-37
CONCORDANCES
1. Dumbarton Oaks Collection
2. Dumbarton Oaks, Whittemore Loan
3. Fogg Museum, Whittemore Coins
INDEXES
1. Obverse Inscriptions
2. Reverse Inscriptions
3. Obverse and Reverse ‘Types
4. Mint-Marks, Letters, Sigla, etc.
5. General Index
247
248
250
253
255
260
262
263
266
269
271
273
276
278
296
299
339
345
347
471
471
477
478
479
479
481
485
489
49]
FOREWORD
The Dumbarton Oaks catalogues of Byzantine coins, as they were planned in the 1950s,
followed the pattern of those of the British Museum in beginning with the reign of Anastasius
I. Only for the purely “Byzantine” centuries that followed did it seem feasible to build up a
collection of sufficient range and quality to form the basis for a completely fresh study of Byz-
antine coinage. It is true that the Peirce collection, which formed the nucleus of that at Dum-
barton Oaks, contained a substantial number of earlier coins, including a few of considerable
numismatic importance, but it would never have been possible to expand it on a scale that would
allow it to vie with those of London, Paris, Vienna, and Berlin, or even with the Paul Gerin
collection catalogued by Voetter in 1921. For isolated series the great public collections could be
equaled or even surpassed—the Italian scholar and collector, G. Cornaggia, did this with the
silver coins of the Tetrarchy—but they can as a whole never be approached in range or quality.
The late Roman coins at Dumbarton Oaks nonetheless deserve to be placed at the disposal
of scholars. This has in part been done. In 1958 Alfred Bellinger published such medallions as
were then in the collection, and in 1964 he and three other scholars published the gold and
silver coins of the period 284-395. This left unpublished the bronze coins of the late third and
fourth centuries and the whole coinage of the period 395-491. The bronze coins in question,
however, are neither numerous nor of great importance, and since volumes VI-IX of Roman
Imperial Coinage and several excellent museum catalogues cover the period, there would be little
point in publishing them.
The coins of 395-491, or rather those of the rulers between Arcadius and Honorius and
the fall of the Western Empire, are a different matter. Although the Dumbarton Oaks holdings
cannot be compared with those in the great national collections, there is no prospect of these
being published in the immediate future, and it does contain a number of rarities and even a
few unique pieces as well as providing a good general coverage except in the bronze. It is true
that the material is not sufficient to serve as a basis for a detailed study comparable to those
given in the introductions to the later volumes of the Byzantine catalogues. But it is possible to
adopt a method of publication approaching what numismatists term sylloge form, with all the
coins being illustrated and summary descriptions of them provided on facing pages of text.
The usefulness of this type of publication in its most austere form, as exemplified by the
British Academy Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum and Sylloge of Coins of the British Isles, is virtually
limited to numismatists specializing in the series concerned. But such volumes, if provided with
adequate introductions, as in the parallel Cambridge publication entitled Medieval European
Coinage, can be made useful to historians and other scholars with no specialized knowledge of
numismatics. This is the aim of the present volume. Parts of the introduction are perhaps open
to the censure of being “condotte al livello didascalico e banalizzante d’una dispensa universi-
X FOREWORD
taria,” as an Italian reviewer once described the explanatory sections in a work on Galla Placidia
and her times. They are justified because coins are of interest to historians, numismatists, and
collectors—the categories are not mutually exclusive—and while these each have their own
areas of expertise, they are also apt to have their own areas of ignorance.
The terminal date of the volume presents no problem, for it naturally ends with the death
of Zeno in 491, where DOC I begins. A suitable opening date is more difficult to determine.
From the historian’s point of view, the most obvious one would be 395, that of the death of
Theodosius I and the effective separation of the Empire between his two sons, for this separation
was continued under their respective successors. But to adopt such a date would involve omitting
most of the coinage of both Arcadius and Honorius, for coins had been struck in their names
since they had been associated co-augusti in 383 and 393 respectively. The inclusion of their
coins of the twelve years 383—95, on the other hand, runs the risk of creating a false impression
of the coinage of these years, since the bulk of it was in fact struck by other, effective, emperors,
from Gratian and Valentinian II onward. It also conceals the fact that the dating of the coins
depends on the general history of these years and on events in which the personal history of
Arcadius and Honorius, who were only children, played a very minor part. ‘To omit these em-
perors and start the volume with Theodosius II and Valentinian III would, on the other hand,
leave one with very little catalogue, besides omitting some of the most interesting numismatic
changes of the period. It has therefore seemed best to begin with Arcadius and Honorius, in
each case from the date of his accession, despite the drawbacks involved.
The arrangement of the coins in the text requires some explanation, since it runs against
the current fashion of giving priority to mints over everything else. This preference for mints is
natural to numismatists who are concerned with style and die-relationships as sources of infor-
mation on how coins are produced. It is less enlightening to historians, who are usually not
much interested in mints but are concerned with the changing patterns of coinage and prefer
to see the material arranged as far as possible chronologically. This has been the plan adopted
here, but “Western” and “Eastern” issues, and the subordinate issues of pretenders and those in
the names of empresses, have been treated as separate entities. This has the disadvantage of
breaking up the coimage of each mint, but it allows the user to see at a glance which mints
participated in each issue and how their products differed from each other. Scholars needing a
clearer conspectus of mint production after 395 will be able to obtain this from RIC X when it
appears.
A volume such as this is one that I had hoped for many years to produce myself, and some
notes and even drafts of text for the introduction go back to the 1950s. But it was crowded out
by other projects, and it has been my good fortune, and that of Dumbarton Oaks, that it even-
tually aroused the interest of Dr. Melinda Mays, an Oxford scholar whose principal field of study
is in Celtic coins and who has been working for several years preparing for press, in collabora-
tion with Dr. J. P. C. Kent, the late Derek Allen’s catalogue of Celtic coins in the British Museum.
The catalogue in this volume has in the main been her work and the introduction mine, but we
have collaborated closely and take joint responsibility for the whole. Since we both have obliga-
tions elsewhere and interests in other fields, the completion of the book has taken an unreason-
FOREWORD xi
ably long time, having been projected in 1985, begun in 1986, and completed only in 1990. The
delay has had one great advantage, for there is a substantial overlap between our book and
Wolfgang Hahn’s Moneta Imperii Romani, Moneta Imperti Byzantini, a survey of the coinage of the
East between 408 and 491, and since this was published early in 1989, it has been possible to
take account of this authoritative work, even if not always agreeing with it, in our final revisions.
Two other scholars with interests in the same field, Dr. John Kent of the British Museum and
Dr. C. E. King of the Ashmolean Museum, have been helpful to us on a number of occasions,
and to both we express our warmest thanks. But since we did not always follow their advice,
such shortcomings as users may find must be attributed to us and not to them. We should also
like to express our thanks to Edna Pilmer, for her impeccable typing of the introduction and
appendixes, and to Frances Kianka for the endless pains she expended on copyediting a difficult
manuscript, forcing us to resolve contradictions and ambiguities in the text and revising the
format of the bibliography so as to make it much easier for readers to use.
PHILIP GRIERSON
ABBREVIATIONS AND NORMS OF REFERENCE
The abbreviations listed here are those used in the Introduction and the Catalogue other
than the ones which are defined at the head of the pages in the latter on which they occur.
Abbreviations of periodicals are given at the beginning of the Bibliography (below, p. 299).
Coin references are basically to RIC IX for coins struck prior to 395, to Cohen and Tolstoi
respectively for Western and Eastern coins thereafter, and to Lacam 1983 for Western gold coins
from 455 onward. Sabatier references are not given systematically, since they often include coins
from several mints under a single heading and so are insufficiently precise. Since Cohen is at
best illustrated with line engravings, references are added to easily accessible photographic il-
lustrations for coins not represented in the Dumbarton Oaks or Whittemore collections.
Numbers in boldface in the text refer to the catalogue entries.
acq. acquired
AE 1-4 Aes (bronze) in modules of decreasing size
ANS American Numismatic Society, New York
AR silver
AV gold
BM British Museum, London
BMC with sufhx The appropriate volumes of the British Museum Catalogues as follows:
BMC Byz (Byzantine), BMC RE (Roman Empire), BMC Vand (Van-
dals, Ostrogoths, Lombards)
BN Bibliothéque Nationale (Cabinet des Médailles), Paris
bt. bought
C H. Cohen, Description historique des monnaies frappées sous empire romain
(see Cohen 1880-92 in Bibliography)
ca. circa
cat. catalogue
C] Codex Justinianus (see Bibliography)
coll. collection
CTh Codex Theodosianus (see Bibliograpy)
d. died
den. denomination
dep. deposited, deposed
descr. described
diam. diameter
DO Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies, Washington, D.C.
DOC Dumbarton Oaks Catalogue (see Bibliography)
ed(s). editor(s)
edn. edition
Xli
emp.
ex
ex;
fd.
FMRD
gl. cr.
Gn
illus.
incl.
km
lb.
LRBC
MEC
MGH
MIB
MIRB
mod.
obv.
02.
PCR
pl(s).
PLRE
RE
repr.
rev.
RIC
UB
wt.
ABBREVIATIONS xiii
emperor, empress
from (used in describing coin pedigrees)
exergue
found
Die Fundmiinzen der rémischen Zeit in Deutschland (see Bibliography)
gram(s)
globus cruciger
F. Gnecchi, J medaglioni romani (see Gnecchi 1912 in Bibliography)
illustrated
includes(d)
kilometer(s)
left
pound(s)
Late Roman Bronze Coinage (see Hill et al. 1960 in Bibliography)
Medieval European Coinage | (see Grierson and Blackburn 1986 in Bibliog-
raphy)
Monumenta Germaniae Historica (see Bibliography)
Moneta Imperui Byzantini (see Hahn 1973-81 in Bibliography)
Moneta Imperut Romani, Moneta Imperi Byzantini (see Hahn 1989 in Bibliog-
raphy)
millimeters
mint-mark
Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society)
modern
obverse
ounce(s)
Principal Coins of the Romans (see Carson 1981 in Bibliography)
plate(s)
The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, ed. A. H. M. Jones et al. (see
Bibliography)
Procés-Verbaux
right
R. Ratto, Monnaies byzantines (sale catalogue, Lugano, 19 December 1930;
repr. Amsterdam, 1959)
Paulys Real-Encyclopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
reprinted
reverse
The Roman Imperial Coinage, ed. H. Mattingly et al. (see Bibliography).
The early coins in this volume are covered in vol. IX, Valentinian I-—
Theodosius I, by J. W. E. Pearce (1951).
J. Sabatier, Description générale des monnaies byzantines frappées sous les empe-
reurs d’Orent .. . (see Sabatier 1862 in Bibliography)
J. Tolstoi, Monnaies byzantines (see Tolstoi 1912—14 in Bibliography)
QO. Ulrich-Bansa, Moneta Mediolanensis (352—498) (see Ulrich-Bansa 1949
in Bibliography)
with
weight
OOD oP OD =
oO OO WwW WNMRMONDNNNNONONN NR eR RR Re Ree
OPO Nr COMO WMO OR WONeK CO KO MmMN OO KR WOM eK OC '
LIST OF TABLES
. Roman Emperors, 379-491
. Coins of Fifth-Century Empresses
. Roman Weights
Composition of Theodosian AE 4 from the Lierre and Bermondsey Hoards
. Silver Miliarenses in the Collections
. Weights of Silver Coins in the Collections
. Weights of Bronze Coins in the Collections
. Dioceses and Mints in the Late Fourth and Early Fifth Centuries
Theodosius I and His Contemporaries
. The House of Valentinian
. The House of Theodosius
. Arcadius: AE 2 of 383-6
. Arcadius: AE 4 of 383-6
. Arcadius: Constantinople, Solidi
. Western Coinages in Arcadius’ Name, 383—8: Normal Issues 383—4
. Western Coinages in Arcadius’ Name, 383—8: Normal Issues 384—8
. Arcadius: Constantinople, Gold Multiples and Fractions
. Western Coinages in Arcadius’ Name, 383-8: Special Issues
. Arcadius: Constantinople, Silver Coins
. Arcadius: Eastern AE 2, 386-93
. Arcadius: Eastern AE 4, 386-93
. Coins of Italian Mints in Arcadius’ Name, 388-91
. Coins of Gallic Mints in Arcadius’ Name, 388—92
. Arcadius: Eastern AE 2, 393-5
. Arcadius: Eastern AE 3 and 4, 393—5
. Western Coinages in Arcadius’ Name, 392—5
. Arcadius: Eastern AE, 395-401
. Arcadius: Eastern AE, 402-8
. Western AV in Arcadius’ Name, 394—408
. Western AR in Arcadius’ Name, 394—408
. Western AE in Arcadius’ Name, 394—408
. Eudoxia: AE
. Theodosius II: Eastern AE
. Honorius: Solidi with SM/COMOB
. Honorius: Eastern AE, 393-5
XIV
29
32
36
38
42-6
49
94
95
96
98
99
100
103
104
107
108
11]
112
113.
114
116
120
121
122
124
126
128
130
131
134
140
196
197
36.
Ae
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49,
LIST OF TABLES
Honorius: Western Solidi, 394—423
Honorius: Western Gold Multiples and Fractions
Honorius: Western AR
Honorius: Western AE, 395-423
AV and AR of Constantinople in Honorius’ Name, 395-423
Solidi of Thessalonica in Honorius’ Name
Eastern AE in Honorius’ Name, 395—423
The Bina 1961 Hoard, ca. 445
The Butera 1939 Hoard, ca. 455
The Comiso 1936 Hoard, ca. 430/5
Denominational Pattern of the Fano 1956 Hoard, ca. 435/40?
The Menzelen 1754 Hoard, ca. 413
The Szikancs 1963 Hoard, ca. 450
The Vedrin ca. 1920 Hoard, ca. 495: Rulers and Mints
199
200
203-4
207
210
re
213
279
280
283
284
287
291
294
INTRODUCTION TO THE COINAGE
HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC
BACKGROUND
A. The Divided Empire
The historical background is most completely dealt with by Stein and Palanque (1949-59)
and Demougeot (1979), with Piganiol (1972) for the period prior to 395 and the first volume of
Bury 1923 for that between 395 and 491. Jones (1964), which covers the three centuries between
284 and 602, is massively documented and especially valuable for administrative and economic
history. Courcelle (1964) is illuminating on the fifth century, and there are important interpre-
tative studies by Mazzarino (1966) and Kaegi (1968). Summary biographies of individuals will be
found in volumes I—II of PLRE, and most rulers and leading officials are included in RE.
Julian the Apostate, the last ruler of the Constantinian dynasty, became sole emperor on
the death of Constantius II in 361. Neither he nor his successor Jovian (363—4) thought it neces-
sary to provide himself with a colleague, though either, if he had lived longer, might well have
done so.
Valentinian I, elected in 364 to succeed Jovian, almost immediately co-opted his brother
Valens as co-augustus, and thenceforward a multiplicity of emperors was the rule (Kornemann
1930; Palanque 1944). Even Theodosius I, effectively sole ruler for the four months between
the defeat and death of Eugenius in September 394 and his own death the following January,
was nominally only senior augustus, for although his sons Arcadius and Honorius were his
colleagues, neither had yet been assigned an appanage and both were still too young to rule.
But from 395 onward there were separate lines of emperors in East and West (Table 1).
In the period prior to 395 the divisions of territory had been somewhat haphazard. In 375,
for example, when Gratian succeeded his father Valentinian I in the West, he created a separate
entity of Illyricum, including perhaps Italy and Africa, for his half-brother Valentinian II, and
in 388, after the death of Maximus, a drastic reorganization of frontiers was effected, with Illyr-
icum, including Italy and Africa, being added to Theodosius’ Eastern portion and Valentinian
II receiving Britain, Gaul, and Spain in their place. After 395 the divisions were regular and
clear-cut, despite some initial uncertainty over the allocation of part of Illyricum (Grumel 1951).
Arcadius and his successors became emperors in the East, with Constantinople as their capital,
and Honorius and his successors took the West, with Ravenna as their capital from 402 onward,
though rival emperors appeared from time to time in Britain, Gaul, or Spain. Such permanent
boundaries meant that in the fifth century the two halves of the Empire drew further and fur-
ther apart. In form, it is true, the Empire remained a unit, with legislation issued in the names
of all imperial colleagues and the officials of the mints reminded from time to time that coins
should be issued in the names of co-rulers in the other half of the Empire (Blanchet 1908). But
Western emperors only rarely visited the East, and Eastern emperors had no personal acquaint-
ance with the West at all.
4 HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND
Roman Emperors, 379-491
The dates at which some rulers had the imperial titles conferred on them as children are
given in parentheses, as it was from these that coinages in their names began, even if they had
as yet no real power. The names of usurpers and Western emperors not recognized by Constan-
tinople are in italics.
West
Gratian, 375-83 (tit. from 367)
Valentinian II, 375—92
(Illyricum and Italy 375-88, Gaul 388-92)
Magnus Maximus (Gaul), 383-8
Victor (Gaul), tit. 384-8
Eugenius, 392-4
Honorius, 395-423 (tit. from 393)
Marcus (Britain), 406
Gratian (Britain), 406
Constantine III (Gaul), 407-11
Constans (II) (Gaul), 409-11 (Caesar 408-9)
Maximus (Spain) 409-11
Priscus Attalus (Italy), 409-10
Jovinus (Gaul), 411-13
Sebastian (Gaul), tit. 412-13
Priscus Attalus (again, Gaul), 414-16
Constantius IIT, 421
Galla Placidia, augusta, 421-50
Maximus (again, Spain), 420-2
John, 423-5
Valentinian III, 425-55
Honoria, augusta, 426?—-450?
Licinia Eudoxia, augusta 439—ca. 490
Petronius Maximus, 455
Avitus, 455-6
Majorian, 457-61
Severus III, 461—5
Anthemius, 467-72
Euphemia, augusta, 467—?
Olybrius, 472
Glycerius, 473-4
Julius Nepos, 474-80
Romulus “Augustulus,” 475-6
East
Valens, 364-78
Theodosius I, 379-95
Flaccilla, augusta 379-86
Arcadius, 395-408 (tit. from 383)
Eudoxia, augusta, 400-4
Theodosius II, 408—50 (tit. from 402)
Pulcheria, augusta, 414—53
Eudocia, augusta, 423-60
Marcian, 450-7
Leo I, 457-74
Verina, augusta, 457-84
Leo II, 474—5 (caesar from 473)
Zeno, first reign, 474-5
Ariadne, augusta, 474-515
Basiliscus, 475-6
Marcus, tit. 475-6
Zenonis, augusta, 475-6
Zeno, restored, 476—91
Leontius (Isauria), 484-8
THE DIVIDED EMPIRE 5
The main destabilizing factor in the last decades of the fourth century was the presence of
the Visigoths in the northern Balkans. This East Germanic people, driven against the Danube
by the entry of the Huns into Russia, had been authorized by Valens to settle south of the river
in 376. The Empire was by that time well used to Germans, who formed one of the most valued
elements in the army and often rose to high rank in imperial service. Dagalaifus, of uncertain
but clearly Germanic parentage, was magister militum in the West in the 360s and consul in 366;
Merobaudes was a trusted lieutenant of Julian and three times consul under his successors;
Bauto, magister militum in the 380s and consul in 385, was father of the future empress Eudoxia.
But while the Empire could absorb individuals and cope with small bands of mercenary soldiers,
it could not easily deal with an entire people. The Eastern emperor Valens was killed and his
army virtually destroyed by the Visigoths at Adrianople in 378, and although Theodosius man-
aged to contain their immediate expansion in the winter of 378/9 and signed a formal agreement
with them in 382, the danger created by their presence in the Empire was only postponed. In
395, on hearing of the emperor's death, they elected a leader, Alaric, whose ambition was to
obtain high military office for himself and more land and greater wealth for his people.
The history of the two halves of the Empire in the fifth century was very different. Although
Alaric started his career in the East, he and his followers moved into Italy in 401. Thencefor-
ward, although Germanic military leaders played a prominent role in public affairs at Constan-
tinople, and the Balkans suffered terribly from Germanic and Hunnic ravages, the main prov-
inces in the East—Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, Cyrenaica—remained free of occupation and
subject to the rule of Arcadius’ successors. Their history is largely one of religious strife, fanned
by heretical movements and fueled by particularist or national feeling but mainly serving the
ambitions of egocentric ecclesiastics. The Theodosian line formally ended with the death of
Theodosius II in 450, but his daughter Pulcheria married his successor Marcian and preserved
some element of dynastic continuity to 457. Marcian and his successors Leo I and Zeno were all
three experienced soldiers, and Leo’s and Zeno’s most permanent historical legacy was their
success in using the Isaurians, warlike highlanders from southeastern Asia Minor, to offset and
finally eliminate all danger in the East of either Germanic control or extensive Germanic settle-
ment.
The fate of the West, in contrast, was to be one of Germanic occupation. Honorius was an
incompetent nonentity, and his reign saw the loss of Britain, the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410,
the settlement of the Visigoths in southwestern Gaul, the ravaging of Gaul and Spain by mixed
Germanic peoples who had broken across the frozen Rhine on the last day of 406, and the
careers in Britain, Gaul, and Spain of a succession of would-be usurpers. Honorius left no son
(see Table 11), and his natural successor, his brother-in-law Constantius III whom he had reluc-
tantly created co-emperor in 421, predeceased him. Constantius’ son Valentinian III was in-
stalled in the West by his cousin Theodosius II after the brief interlude of a “usurper” John
(423-5), but Valentinian’s reign was no more distinguished than was that of Honorius. He was
murdered in 455, by which time the bulk of the West was under Germanic occupation and the
imperial army almost entirely Germanic in composition. None of his successors reigned for long.
The end of the Empire in the West is traditionally dated to 476, when a Scirian officer, Odovacar,
murdered the magister militum Orestes, in revolt against the legitimate emperor Julius Nepos,
and deposed his son Romulus, nicknamed Augustulus, whom Orestes had created emperor the
previous year. At Odovacar’s instruction the Roman Senate wrote to the Eastern emperor Zeno
inviting him to accept sole rule, since, with the loss of Britain and most of Gaul, Spain, and
6 HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND
Africa, a separate emperor in the West was no longer necessary. Zeno’s reply was that Romulus
had been a usurper and the West still had a lawful sovereign in the person of Nepos, who was
then living in exile in Dalmatia. Odovacar and the Senate agreed to accord Nepos some degree
of recognition, but he did not return to Italy and when he was murdered by a personal retainer
in 480 the separate line of Western emperors came to an end.
B. The Right to Coin
The right to coin was vested in the emperor—not formally conferred on him by any specific
piece of legislation but inherent in his zmpertum. In the fifth century it was exercised by him, or
rather by his officials, as a matter of course, regularly in his own name and less regularly in the
names of Eastern or Western colleagues, of sons who had been created augusti but not yet given
a specific part of the Empire to rule, of such consorts or relatives as had the rank of augusta,
and of caesars. Although a few women of the imperial family, for example, Theodosius II’s sister
Marina, had conferred on them the title of nobilissima femina, or éxupaveotaty in Greek, this
dignity did not carry with it minting honors, though a century earlier Constantia, half-sister of
Constantine I and widow of Licinius, had some rare coins struck as soror Constantini aug(usti)
giving her the title of N F (RIC VII.26—7, 570-1).
(1) Imperial Coins
These require little comment: the authority behind them was made apparent by the name,
titles, and image of the emperor, who had normally attained office through co-option by a ruling
augustus, or sometimes an augusta. He might also have done so through acclamation by his
troops, in which case he required confirmation by the Senate or a ruling colleague. Where the
coins were being struck by one or more co-emperors in each other's names, the actual emperor
responsible for the minting was the one in whose territory the mint was situated, not the em-
peror whose name appeared on the coin. Less importance seems to have been attached to the
actual exercise of minting than in earlier centuries, for there was no attempt to produce coins
at all costs and in the briefest reigns; there are none, for example, in the names of the local
usurpers Marcus and Gratian in Britain during the reign of Honorius. A usurper normally only
began to mint when he felt he had a solid basis of power and, in favorable circumstances, an
imperial mint in his possession, though the latter was not a necessity. Barcelona, which had not
been an imperial mint earlier, was called upon to strike coins for the usurper Maximus in 409.
Emperors with sons, even if they were only usurpers, usually created one of them augustus in
the hope of ensuring the succession and minted in his name. Basiliscus was unusual in associat-
ing his son with him on the coins (Basiliscus et Marcus) instead of issuing coins in Marcus’ name
separately, and Zeno in associating with him the nobilissimus Caesar Leo in the same way (D N
ZENO ET LEO NOV CAES).
(2) Coins of Empresses
These are at first glance a problem, for coins were struck in the names of some empresses
and not in those of others—in that of Theodosius I’s first wife Flaccilla but not in that of his
second and more distinguished one Galla, in the name of Arcadius’ wife Eudoxia but not in
those of Honorius’ successive wives, Maria or Thermantia. The explanation is that only some
COINS OF EMPRESSES 7
empresses had conferred on them the formal title of augusta, and this usually did not take place
until they had given birth to a boy, a potential heir to the throne (Holum 1982, 30-2). Flaccilla
was married to Theodosius in, presumably, the middle 370s, and gave birth to Arcadius in 377/
8. She was subsequently created augusta, though the year is uncertain (Holum 1982, 29 note
85). Galla, on the other hand, never received this title, despite her being a daughter of Valenti-
nian I and mother of Galla Placidia, for Placidia was a girl and there was an heir to the throne
already. Maria and Thermantia were both childless. The two exceptions to this generalization
were Theodosius II’s elder sister Pulcheria and Valentinian III’s elder sister Honoria, both of
them unmarried, but Pulcheria virtually had herself created augusta by her teenaged brother
Theodosius, and Honoria was created augusta by her mother, no doubt for good political rea-
sons, in ca. 426. The Theodosian proliferation of empresses did not go uncriticized: Honorius
protested against the elevation of Eudoxia in 400 and the sending out of her official images
(laureatae) (Holum 1982, 66-7, 128-9).
In the time of the Principate, coins were struck in the names of virtually any member of the
imperial family, and in that of the Tetrarchy and under Constantine the Great coins were still
being struck on behalf of a succession of augustae: Valeria (daughter of Diocletian and second
wife of Galerius), Fausta (daughter of Maximian and second wife of Constantine), Helena (first
wife of Constantius I and mother of Constantine the Great), and Theodora (step-daughter of
Maximian and second wife of Constantius I). After the 330s the practice was suddenly dropped.
There were no coins for the three successive wives of Constantius II, for Julian’s wife Helena,
for Jovian’s wife Charito, for the formidable Justina, second wife of Valentinian I, for Valens’
wife Domnica, for either of Gratian’s wives Constantia and Laeta. Only with Flaccilla does the
sequence resume. Theodosius struck substantial numbers of coins in her name and created a
precedent for the next hundred years (Holum 1982, 3—4, 22—44). Flaccilla’s dignity had indeed
one specific consequence for later empresses, the assumption of her first name Aelia as part of
her title (Holum 1982, 22) in the same way as empresses of the early fourth century had called
themselves Flavia, a counterpart of the name Flavius assumed by their husbands and represent-
ing a conscious effort to evoke memories of the great Flavian dynasty. It was, however, used only
in Eastern mints.
The fifth-century empresses in whose names coins were struck are listed in Table 2, a few
points in which require comment. One is that the coins form separate series from those of the
emperors, being minted in the empresses’ names only. The only exception is the nummus of
Leo I which has on the reverse the standing figure of Verina (582-6). Another is that in the
early part of the period, when the number of co-augusti tended to be accurately reflected in the
coin legend AVG(GGG), the augustae were never counted, though Pearce (in RIC 1X.206 note*)
suggested that Theodosius II’s Concordia solidi should be dated after 414 on the assumption that
one of the three Cs in its legend stood for Pulcheria. Nor were the empresses in one half of the
Empire normally recognized by co-emperors in the other; Leo I did not mint in Euphemia’s
name nor any Western emperor in Verina’s. Theodosius II as usual provides exceptions, for he
minted coins of his VOT XX series in the name of Galla Placidia, presumably because she was
resident in Constantinople at the time, and his IMP XX XXII solidi were struck in the names of
(Galla) Placidia and (Licinia) Eudoxia. The title of augusta borne by Pulcheria and Honoria is
in any case anomalous, though explicable. Other Western emperors in the period are known to
have been married, Olybrius indeed to Valentinian III’s younger daughter Placidia, but none of
the wives were augustae.
TABLE 2
HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND
Coins of Fifth-Century Empresses
Name Relationship Dates Coins minted by
Eudoxia Wife of Arcadius 400-4 Arcadius
Pulcheria Sister of Theodosius II, wife 414—53 Theodosius II
of Marcian Marcian
Galla Placidia Half-sister of Honorius, wife 421-50 Honorius
of Constantius III Theodosius II
Valentinian III
Eudocia Wife of Theodosius II 423-60 Theodosius II
Honoria Sister of Valentinian III 426?—50? Valentinian III
Licinia Eudoxia Daughter of Theodosius II, 439-ca. 90? Valentinian III
wife of Valentinian III Theodosius II
Verina Wife of Leo I (457-84) Leo I
Euphemia Daughter of Marcian, 467-? Anthemius
wife of Anthemius
Ariadne Wife of (1) Zeno, 4742-515 Zeno
(2) Anastasius I
Zenonis Wife of Basiliscus 475-6 Basiliscus
After Verina and Ariadne there is a break in the sequence of empresses for whom coins
were struck. There are none of Euphemia, wife of Justin I, or of the great Theodora, wife of
Justinian. The series resumes with Sophia, wife of Justin II and regent on his behalf, but only
in association with her husband and on coins of silver and copper. There is then a sequence of
associated empresses down to the unpopular Martina, second wife of Heraclius, followed by a
much longer break down to Irene. It can scarcely be an accident that each of these gaps in the
series was immediately preceded by the coinage of an empress—Fausta, Verina, Martina—
whose personal or political reputation was a source of great scandal and scarcely calculated to
encourage subsequent rulers to bring their consorts too conspicuously into public notice.
(3) Coins of Caesars
Caesars were created only rarely in the fifth century, as indeed they had been in the second
half of the fourth under the successors of Julian. Promotion was instead made directly to the
highest rank, that of augustus. The office of caesar, however, did exist and was regarded as
giving its holder some entitlement to a place on the coinage, though the resulting coins, usually
limited to solidi, were struck primarily in the senior colleague’s name. The legend is usually the
Salus Reipublicae one frequently used for augustae and newly promoted augusti.
The caesarships thus commemorated were as follows:
(a) Valentinian III, between his promotion to the rank of caesar on 23 October 424 and his
elevation to that of augustus on 23 October 425. The resulting coins are solidi of Theodosius
II, minted at Constantinople (370-3). Valentinian’s name does not appear, but the coins have as
reverse type a seated figure of Theodosius and a much smaller standing one of Valentinian, the
inscription being Salus Reipublicae. Unlike later coins with associated caesars, this one, for polit-
ical reasons, formed a substantive issue.
GENERAL FEATURES OF THE COINAGE 9
(b) Patricius, son of Aspar, as colleague of Leo I in 470-1 (below, pp. 161, 162). The obverse
type of his solidus is that normal for Leo alone, and the reverse shows a small standing figure,
nimbate and crowned, wearing a chlamys and holding a globus cruciger (532). The inscription
is Salus Reipublicae followed by a square C, presumably for Caesar or Caesans.
(c) Leo II was briefly Caesar between October 473 and January 474. His short period as
such is commemorated by solidi of Leo I having for reverse type two seated figures and a Salus
Reipublicae legend followed by C (below, p. 163).
(d) Marcus, son of Basiliscus, was briefly caesar in the summer of 475 before being pro-
moted augustus. His only known coin as caesar (619) is one of normal type but having the
inscription in the genitive D N BASILISCI ET MARCI C, that is, Dominorum nostrorum Basilisci
(augusti understood) et Marci C(aesaris), or possibly Domini nostri, referring to Basiliscus only.
(e) Leo, son of Armatus and previously named Basiliscus, whom Zeno was induced to raise
to the rank of caesar after his restoration in 476. His coins are of the normal type but have as
obverse legend D N ZENO ET LEO NOV CAES, that is, Dominus noster Zeno (augustus under-
stood) et Leo nob(ilissimus) Caes(ar). There are also tremisses with the same legend. Their attri-
bution, which is disputed, is discussed below (pp. 181-2).
C. GENERAL FEATURES OF THE COINAGE
The early coins catalogued in this volume are covered in RIC IX, by J. W. E. Pearce, which
ends in 395 and classifies the material mint by mint. This is an arrangement useful to numisma-
tists but often frustrating to historians. RIC X, which will deal with the period 395-491, has not
yet appeared. In default of it, numismatists use for Western emperors the eighth volume of
Cohen (1880-92), the great nineteenth-century listing of Roman imperial coinage, and for the
Eastern ones the relevant parts of Sabatier (1862) and Tolstoi (1912-14), or, ata more elementary
level, the first part of Goodacre (1928-33). These works cater to the needs of collectors by listing
the coins according to the alphabetical order of reverse inscriptions, which are more varied than
obverse ones. They can thus be conveniently numbered and their alphabetical order allows them
to be easily found, but such an order bears no relationship to the sequence of issues and is
annoying to numismatists and historians alike. For Eastern mints these are now largely
superseded, from 408 onward, by Hahn’s M/RB; its enlargements of the small AE are of partic-
ular value for the elucidation of types and mint-marks. The bronze coinage is covered by LRBC
(1960), which is arranged by mints but presents the material in so condensed a form as to be
usable only by numismatists. There is also an elementary and very incomplete manual on the
bronze by Goodacre (1922). Pearce 1933b provides a listing of gold and silver mint by mint to
423, apparently in anticipation of a monograph he never completed and once again in an ex-
tremely succinct form. The illustrations in PCR III, and in Kent 1978 and Lacam 1983, illustrate
most of the numismatic types, in the two latter cases by splendid enlargements, but Lacam’s book
is limited to Western gold coinage and virtually to the period 455-91. Ulrich-Bansa’s monograph
on the coinage of Milan (Ulrich-Bansa 1949) covers much more than its title suggests, for it takes
account of all related issues from other mints, but since Milan struck only in gold and silver it
offers little help with the bronze.
The coinage of the period 383-491 falls essentially into the three phases 383-95, 395-445,
and 445-91. The first and last dates, however, mark no more than the beginnings and ends of
reigns, and the third is simply fifty years after the second. The year 383 saw no significant
change in the coinage and has simply been chosen because the volume has to begin somewhere,
and while a case could be made for letting the third run to 498, when Anastasius created the
follis as a multiple of forty nummi and thus inaugurated what numismatists are accustomed to
think of as “Byzantine” coinage, the early years of Anastasius are already covered in DOC I. The
10 HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND
three phases have in common the issue of gold solidi on a large scale, but silver coinage virtually
disappeared in the course of the second phase and in the third the bronze coinage was effectively
reduced to a single denomination, the lowest in the existing scale of values. One assumes that
such a simplification of the coinage must have reflected drastic changes in the economic life of
the Empire, or at least in the military and administrative considerations that controlled the issue
of coin, but with virtually no written evidence it is difficult to surmise what such economic or
administrative changes may have been.
The coinage of the first phase carries on essentially from that of the earlier fourth century,
with abundant issues of gold solidi, silver siliquae, and bronze of various denominations. It
ended abruptly in 395, with the formal withdrawal of the higher denominations of bronze. Its
characteristics are shown by the coins illustrated on Plates 1-12 (Arcadius) and 27-30 (Honor-
ius). Although these were being struck during only the first twelve years of the century covered
by this volume, they occupy nearly half its plates and in many of their features they contrast
sharply with the coins from ca. 410 onward. The contrast at the time would have been greater
still, for the coins struck in the name of Arcadius formed only a small fraction of the total being
minted in the names of Theodosius and a succession of colleagues or rivals in the West. The
later coinage is thus much smaller in bulk as well as much simpler in content.
But although the coinage of the first phase is more complex and varied than that of the two
that succeeded it, it was very different from that of the Principate and somewhat different even
from that of the first half of the fourth century. The typical coinage of the Flavian period had
involved an aureus of 7.28 g, a silver denarius of 3.41 g worth 1/25th of the aureus, and normally
four denominations of base metal, a sestertius and dupondius of brass (orichalcum) and an as
and quadrans of copper. The sestertius, worth a quarter of a denarius and a hundredth of an
aureus, was a very heavy coin weighing as much as an ounce (27.29 g), and even the quadrans,
a sixteenth of the sestertius, still weighed about 3.2 g. This system had collapsed in the great
inflation of the third century, the central point in which was the debasement of the double
denarius, the so-called antoninianus, introduced under Caracalla. Even from its start this de-
nomination had a metallic content below that of two denarii, and when it was drastically debased
in the mid century it made impossible the continued striking of denarii and ultimately of all
denominations of aes. It was left for Diocletian to build on preliminary reforms begun under
Aurelian and carry out a major restructuring of the entire monetary system, his work being
completed by Constantine.
The main elements in the new system were two new denominations of gold and silver,
lighter than the old aureus and denarius, and four denominations of low-grade billon/bronze,
also smaller and lighter than their predecessors of orichalcum/copper. The Diocletianic aureus
(1/60th Ib. = 5.56 g) was replaced in 309 by Constantine’s still lighter solidus of 1/72nd lb.
(= 4.55 g), the gold coin that was still the standard in the second half of the fourth century and
was to remain so into the future. Diocletian’s argenteus of 1/96th Ib. (3.41 g) was also replaced
by a lighter coin conventionally known as a siliqua of 2.27 g struck 144 to the lb. but varying in
weight a good deal (Callu 1980b; Depeyrot 1984). To fill the gap between solidus and siliqua
there were two fractional gold pieces—a half (semissis) and a third (tremissis), the latter having
replaced in the 380s an incongruous piece of 14 scruples—and two silver multiples, a heavy
and light miliarense, but only the latter, in weight and value a double siliqua, was struck on a
substantial scale; in large payments silver circulated by weight, in the form of stamped ingots,
and not by tale. Diocletian’s four denominations of subsidiary coinage, which, because of uncer-
GENERAL FEATURES OF THE COINAGE 11
tainty over their ancient names (below, pp. 27—8), are customarily described as AE | (or aes 1),
AE 2, AE 3, and AE 4 in descending order of size, also underwent great changes. The heaviest
denomination of ca. 10 g, repeatedly altered in weight and value, was last struck in 364/5 by
Valentinian I and Valens, and the subsidiary coinage of the following three decades consisted
eventually of the three denominations, AE 2, AE 3, and AE 4. The AE 2 was mainly struck in
the East, presumably a reflection of the fact that in the same period silver coinage tended to be
struck more in the West. Large multiples in gold and silver of the kind traditionally described
as “medallions” were also issued for special occasions.
This coinage was struck with reasonable uniformity throughout the Empire in some fifteen
mints. The general pattern of these went back to Diocletian. In the early Empire there had in
principle been one “imperial” mint, normally at Rome, but its output had been supplemented
by local (“Roman Provincial”) coinages of silver and—mainly—bronze in the East, known col-
lectively to numismatists as “Greek Imperial,” and by rather fewer local coinages in the West.
Virtually all these had ceased by the middle decades of the third century, with only Alexandria
surviving down to the 290s. Their disappearance left the coinage of the later Empire purely
“imperial,” but it was one struck at many mints which in principle would issue coins of the same
weight and type, distinguished from each other by different mint-marks. In practice there was
a good deal of flexibility. Most mints tended to concentrate on the production of bronze, while
that of gold was gradually centralized and eventually limited to wherever the imperial court was
stationed at the moment. The minting of silver was also closely dependent on the central admin-
istration, though less exclusively so than was that of gold.
The designs of the coins in the first period continued those of the earlier fourth century
with little change, but their basic features went back to the reign of the Christian Constantine
and not to that of the pagan Diocletian. The normal obverse type was a profile bust from which
characterized portraiture had been virtually eliminated, so that the same design could serve for
any of several imperial colleagues— Valens, Gratian, Theodosius—provided he were an adult.
To this there were a few exceptions, notably Eugenius, and child emperors were shown small
and childlike, though never as the infants they sometimes were in real life. The reverse type,
since the establishment of Christianity as the official religion of the state, had seen the elimina-
tion of the Olympian deities and the array of Virtues and other personifications that had diver-
sified the coinage of the Principate. The only survivors were the personification of Victoria,
widely venerated in senatorial and military circles, and those of Roma and Constantinopolis.
Since the pagan repertory had not been replaced by any substantial importation of Christian
themes, the reverses were left free for a variety of what were effectively military-imperial types:
the emperor standing with a labarum and globe, or spurning a fallen captive, or standing in a
galley (the “ship of state”) steered by a Victory, or some similar theme. These types, in their
design and execution, show little falling away from classical models, for, like many ivories and
other small works of art, they had escaped the formalization that had overtaken the monumental
art of the period.
In the second phase (395—445), which passes almost imperceptibly into the third, the area
for which imperial coinage was required in the West was substantially reduced. With it went the
need for small change to pay troops in these areas, but since the contraction in the volume of
coinage and the simplification of the denominational pattern affected both East and West, this
was clearly not a decisive factor in what took place. The coinage of solidi in both East and West
continued as before. Western minting was virtually limited to Italy, and more solidi than previ-
12 HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND
ously may have been struck in the East, for the huge payments to the barbarians, and particu-
larly to the Huns in the 430s and 440s, seem to have been effected mainly in the form of coin,
which allowed easier redistribution among a leader’s followers. The most obvious change was
that while the semissis was still struck only occasionally and for ceremonial purposes, so that
specimens are today very rare, tremisses became from the 420s onward part of the regular
currency. Gold multiples, on the other hand, practically vanish. While well over a hundred spec-
imens of the two decades 383/95 are known to survive, there are scarcely a dozen that can be
dated to the five decades 395/445.
The counterpart to the acceptance of the tremissis as part of the regular currency was the
virtual disappearance of a silver coinage. Theodosius II seems to have minted siliquae on a
substantial scale only for his fourth and eighth quinquennalia, in 420 and 440 respectively. The
siliquae of Honorius belong mainly to his early years, and the two Gallic usurpers Constantine
III and Jovinus were still minting them in some quantity, but after ca. 410 the coin practically
ceased to be struck in the West. Of the usurper John in 423—5 no more than four silver coins,
two siliquae and two half-siliquae, are known. Miliarenses were still minted for ceremonial oc-
casions, and there were sporadic issues of still larger multiples, notably the quarter pound pieces
of Priscus Attalus. It is possible that more half-siliquae were being struck than in the preceding
period.
A related change in this period was the cessation of the regular vota anniversaries, which
had been the most frequent occasions for minting silver coins. Theodosius observed them punc-
tiliously during most of his reign, though taking great liberties over their dates, but his last
substantial vota issues of solidi took place in 430 (VOT XXX MVLT XXXX) and of siliquae in
440 (VOT MVLT XXXX). Semisses were still struck for his ninth guinquennalia in 445, but these
are the last recorded vota in the East, and the VOT XX/VXX on the shield held by the seated
Victory on semisses was immobilized on the coins of later emperors as long as the figures re-
mained legible at all. Regular vota celebrations disappeared at almost the same time in the West,
where a seated Roma accompanied by some appropriate legend (VIRTVS ROMANORVM or
VRBS ROMA) was in any case the normal siliqua type. There are no vota legends on Western
silver coins of Honorius later than 402 (with VOT X MVLT XX), and the VOT XXX MVLT
XXXX on a ceremonial solidus of Ravenna of 422 is quite exceptional, for unlike Theodosius II
he was not accustomed to using a vota legend for this denomination. None of Valentinian III’s
silver coins bear a vota legend, and his only Western vota solidus is a rare and exceptional issue
of 455 with VOT XXX MVLT XXXxX. Vota legends disappear completely under his successors.
The second phase saw two important changes in the designs of the coins. The first was the
introduction of a three-quarter facing bust as the normal obverse type of the solidus under
Arcadius in 395 (207 ff). It was continued by Theodosius II and later emperors but was not
extended to other denominations of gold or to any of the silver coins, and even on solidi a profile
bust was retained for consular issues. It was only once employed on the bronze, on the AE 3
struck in the names of Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius II in 402—8 (238 ff). Nor was it in
this period adopted for the solidus in the West apart from an incongruous ceremonial issue of
Ravenna in 422 (743).
More interesting and significant was the gradual adoption of Christian symbols, whether
cross, Christogram, or Chi-Rho monogram. The cross normally appears in association with some
traditional and indeed half-pagan symbol, such as a Victory, a wreath, or a globe. Its most asser-
tive manifestation was in the form of the large, jeweled cross held by a Victory that was intro-
duced by Theodosius II in 420 as the reverse type of the solidus, the key denomination in the
GENERAL FEATURES OF THE COINAGE 13
monetary system, thus creating the design that was to dominate the solidus for the next century.
It was a type even briefly introduced into the West by Galla Placidia in 425 (824 ff), but it was
not taken over by her son Valentinian III. A cross in wreath was in 400 adopted as the reverse
type for the tremissis (T 143) of Empress Eudoxia, presumably because a new design was re-
quired for a denomination not previously struck for an empress. It continued as the character-
istic reverse type of the tremisses of Pulcheria, Eudocia, and Licinia Eudoxia and was also used
for the same empresses’ silver coins, though in this case it had a rival in a Chi-Rho. Without a
wreath it formed the type of Arcadius’ later AE 4 (253 etc.). The cross on globe had been
introduced near the end of the previous period, but only as held by the Victory on tremisses
(82-3). In the late 420s its use was extended, with Theodosius II shown holding a globus cruci-
ger on the reverses of some of his solidi (359-60, 364-9) and a corresponding rare issue of AE
4 (363), while the globus cruciger is held by the seated Constantinopolis on the VOT XXX
coinage of 430 (379 ff). It does not appear in the West in this period.
The second phase saw one decisive change in mint location and a reduction in the number
of mints in the West. The novelty was the creation of a mint at Ravenna, which had never had
one previously, after Honorius had made this city his effective capital in 402. Its normal output
was limited to gold and silver, and since bronze was issued there only exceptionally it was only
in part the Western equivalent of Constantinople. After 395 the Gallic mints (Lyon, Trier, Arles)
were important only under the usurpers Constantine III and Jovinus, though a few coins were
struck at Trier in the names of Theodosius II and Valentinian III after the latter’s accession in
425. Barcelona was briefly a mint under the usurper Maximus in 409-11. Aquileia rarely minted
after 402, and Milan was practically closed between 402 and the later years of Valentinian III's
reign. The effective mints in the West, during most of the latter, were Ravenna and Rome.
Minting in the East was never quite so concentrated, though the striking of gold and silver
was limited to Constantinople and Thessalonica, mainly the former. Both of these, though Thes-
salonica only occasionally, minted also in bronze, and issues in this metal continued at the other
Eastern mints—Heraclea, Nicomedia, Cyzicus, Antioch, and Alexandria—until at least the 430s.
When, or indeed if, the minting of AE ceased in these mints is hard to say. Certainly it was very
irregular, with individual types of the 420s and 430s not recorded for some mints at all, and
Kent has argued for a general suspension of minting of bronze, in both East and West, in ca.
435.
The final phase, under the successors to the Theodosian family, saw a gold coinage consist-
ing almost exclusively of solidi and tremisses, effectively no silver coins, and huge issues of
nummi, the smallest denomination in copper. Western solidi and tremisses of individual emper-
ors are naturally much rarer than their Eastern counterparts, partly because of the shortness of
each reign and partly because much of the West was by now in the hands of Germanic rulers
who were beginning to have coinages of their own. The dominant type of Eastern nummi is a
monogram, for although the coins were not much lighter than the AE 4 of earlier decades they
were smaller in module and the flan could not easily accommodate the traditional Victory or
Emperor designs.
Eastern solidi of the second half of the fifth century are normally of the Victory-holding-
long-cross type introduced in 420, though there are occasional variants to accommodate impe-
rial consulships (e.g., 530-1) or associations of two emperors (e.g., 533). The types of semisses
and tremisses are unchanged. Silver coins of the usual three denominations—siliquae and heavy
and light miliarenses—are of extreme rarity, with even siliquae only struck on special occasions,
14 HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND
though the government probably held a few in reserve for emergencies that could not be fore-
seen. It is presumably a tribute to their rarity that an unidentified contemporary historian, the
source of Zonaras XIV.1.16, records how the magizster militum Aspar, on the occasion of the great
fire at Constantinople in 465, carried buckets of water to help extinguish the flames and en-
couraged spectators to assist by the distribution of silver coins (vopfopata aeyoveia). But al-
though silver was only rarely minted, silver in ingot form continued to play an important eco-
nomic role. The huge cost of the unlucky Vandal expedition of 468 is given by the writers John
Lydus (De magistratibus I11.43) and Candidus (frag. 2) as 64,000 Ibs. (or 65,000 Ibs.) of gold and
700,000 Ibs. of silver (cf. Bury 1923, 1.337 note 3, and Hendy 1985, 221). The silver, which came
partly from confiscated property and was partly contributed by Anthemius, must have been
effectively disbursed as scrap metal or in ingot form.
The most characteristic feature of Eastern coinage in the second half of the century is the
enormous proliferation of bronze nummi. They have as their characteristic reverse type an
imperial monogram, usually in a wreath and sometimes having a mint-mark (CON, ANT, etc.)
without officina numeral. They weigh ca. 1 g, with a possible reduction from 1.14 g to 0.94 g
under Basiliscus and to 0.84 g under Zeno (Adelson and Kustas 1962, 25—6; 1964, 171-2). A
constitution of Valentinian III shows them reckoned at 7,200 to the solidus in 455, but it seems
likely that overissue had by the 490s caused their value to be about halved, with some 14,000 to
the solidus. Larger AE multiples were not issued for general circulation, but a few were pro-
duced for local circulation at the Byzantine outpost of Cherson on the north side of the Black
Sea. The nummi represent perhaps the lowest point reached by Roman coinage, their tiny value
and crude workmanship contrasting sharply with the high quality of the gold solidi and trem-
isses of the same period.
Imperial minting in the West continued in the second half of the century to be virtually
limited to Italy. Most of North Africa was in the hands of the Vandals, and Gaul and Spain were
in process of occupation by Visigoths, Suevi, Burgundians, and Franks. The solidi were in ap-
pearance tending to assimilate with those of the East. A facing armored bust was introduced
under Anthemius and gradually eliminated the traditional one in profile, while the reverse type
under Julius Nepos became the long cross held by a Victory that had long been dominant in the
East. The tremissis evolved in a different direction, adopting the cross-in-wreath type originally
used for empresses at Constantinople. In contrast to the East, on the other hand, there was a
revival of silver coinage, minted at Ravenna, Rome, and Milan. It took the form of small half-
siliquae weighing ca. 0.7 g and novel in their types, notably in their use of the city Tyche of
Ravenna or of a Roman eagle, the latter Christianized by the insertion of a cross beneath the
tips of its outspread wings. How extensively they were struck is impossible to say, but they were
a foretaste of the abundant silver coinage of the Ostrogoths. Under some emperors the mint of
Arles was prominent in striking gold, notably under Avitus, who came from Gaul and spent
more of his short reign (455—6) there rather than in Italy, and Severus III (461-5).
The bronze coinage of the West—it is traditionally called “bronze,” though it was really one
of poor-quality copper—was essentially the same as that of the East, with a single denomination
of nummi, but it was probably struck on a smaller scale. It was, in any case, virtually limited to
Italy and North Africa. No nummi attributable to Gallic mints are known, and in Italy the nor-
mal mint was Rome, though exceptionally, under Majorian, bronze coins were struck at Ravenna
and Milan. The types tended to remain traditional: a seated Roma, a Victory, the standing figure
of an emperor. The only monogram type occurs on a coin of Severus III, and on this it is,
unexpectedly, not that of the emperor but of his all-powerful magister militum Ricimer (900). Late
HOARDS AND COIN FINDS 15
in the period there was a surprising introduction of a heavy bronze coin (ca. 15 g) having on the
obverse a portrait bust and a form of legend going back to the period of the Tetrarchy and on
the reverse a Victory, with S C in the field, going back to the period of the Flavians (689). It was
struck at Rome in the name of Zeno, probably in the brief period in 477 when, after the depo-
sition of Romulus Augustulus, the Roman Senate had been instructed by Odovacar to give for-
mal recognition to Zeno as sole emperor. It must in any case have been issued only in tiny
numbers and over a very short period of time, for all of the thirty or so specimens known to
exist were struck from only two pairs of dies, their unusually high survival rate being presum-
ably a consequence of their having been put aside as curiosities at the time. The coins bear the
mark of value XL, that is, 40 nummi. In this they look forward to the follis with the Greek mark
of value M, introduced at Constantinople in 498, which in due course became the most charac-
teristic coin of the early Byzantine Empire.
D. HOARDS AND COIN FINDS
Coin hoards are chiefly important as sources of material, often in exceptionally fine condi-
tion and in consequence good guides to metrology, and they can be essential for dating. Single
finds are more reliable evidence for coin distribution. The latter topic falls outside the scope of
this volume, but since the evidence of coin hoards is crucial in determining the chronology of
some issues, a guide to their literature is required. It is in any case helpful to know the number
and nature of the hoards that occur in any historical period. The many gold hoards and finds
from the Baltic region can be left out of the sections that follow, despite their numerical impor-
tance and the value of individual items among them (solidi of Glycerius, of Leontius), for they
do not help in establishing the dating of particular issues or throw much light on coin circulation
within the Empire. The earlier literature on them (Hauberg 1894, 1895; Arne 1919, 1931; Janse
1922a, b; Knapke 1941, 1943; Werner 1949) has been largely but not entirely superseded by the
monograph of Fagerlie (1967; but cf. Grierson’s review in JRS 1968, 281-3) and the immense
survey by Kyhlberg (1986). The coins seem for the most part to have reached Scandinavia (mainly
Oland, Bornholm, and Gotland) as the pay of mercenaries or as tribute and loot, for Scandinavia
was in close touch with Germany proper and there is some literary evidence for men from Scan-
dinavia having been directly in the service of Rome (cf. Fagerlie 1965). The coins are nearly all
solidi and fall into the time span 380-550, with Western issues predominating.
The Scandinavian hoards are almost exclusively of gold coins. Elsewhere gold and bronze
hoards are fairly numerous, though very irregularly distributed in both time and place. Silver
hoards are common only for the second half of the fourth century and the first years of the fifth,
and even in these decades they come mainly from Britain. It is also for the hoards in this province
that we have the most complete and detailed guide, with Archer (1979) for the gold and silver
and Brickstock (1987, 309-407) for the bronze. Isolated gold and silver finds of the later fifth
century are usefully listed in Blackburn (1988, 173-4). Gold hoards of the late fourth and early
fifth centuries from France and its neighbors are covered by Lafaurie in appendices to his ac-
count of the Chécy hoard (Lafaurie 1958, 324-37), as well as being listed by Bastien in his mono-
graph on the last decades of the Lyon mint (Bastien 1987a, 176-9). French gold hoards of the
second half of the fifth century are listed and analyzed by Lafaurie in his account of the Comber-
tault hoard (Lafaurie 1984), and a repertory of silver ones of the second half of the fifth century
is added to his study of a silver coin found at Fleury-sur-Orne (Lafaurie, 1964a). Gold hoards in
Italy are listed in Bourgey (1986) and in more detail, with a map, in Ungaro (1985, 71-3). Ger-
man hoards in all metals were analyzed in Bolin (1926), but most of this is now superseded by
the relevant volumes of FMRD. There is a good map of gold finds of the fourth and early fifth
centuries in western Germany in Griinhagen (1954, 75). Polish hoards are inventoried in Kunisz
(1973), and Czechoslovak ones in Nohejlova-Pratova (1955-8, I.92 ff) and Ondrouch (1964), but
much has been discovered subsequently. Gold hoards and single finds from the Balkans of the
fifth and sixth centuries are listed in Metcalf (1988, 106—9).
16 HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND
These bibliographical surveys vary greatly in the details they include. Some give only names
of rulers and mints, while others have further breakdowns into mints and issues, though this is
possible only where the original descriptions are adequate, which is too often not the case. At-
tempts like that of Meier (1986) to use hoards for the study of metrology and coin wear have in
consequence to leave many hoards entirely out of consideration. The discussions that follow are
practically limited to hoards of numismatic interest. It is perhaps relevant to any estimate of the
wealth of Roman Britain, and of the degree to which gold coin from the continent reached the
island and down to what date (cf. Carson 1975), to learn that a hoard of some 600 gold coins,
ending with ones of Constantine III, was found at Eye in Suffolk in 1791, but with no further
details regarding its contents the numismatist can do nothing with such information.
(1) Gold Hoards
Gold hoards are sufficiently numerous and important to merit special treatment in Appen-
dix 3, where they are listed in alphabetical order and their contents summarized. They need not
be separately discussed here, but a list in their probable order of burial will be useful.
Poitou (France), ca. 384
Corbridge (England), 384/5
Sidi-bou-Said (Libya), 388
Wirselen (Germany), ca. 395
Krivina (Bulgaria), ca. 395
Parma (Italy), 395/400?
Beilen (Netherlands), ca. 398
Gravisca (Italy), ca. 400/410
San Lazzaro (Italy), ca. 404
Chécy (France), 407/8
Dortmund (Germany), 407/8
Mainz (Germany), ca. 410
Jerez de la Frontera (Spain), ca. 410
Chapipi (Spain), 408/11
Gross Bodungen (Germany), 410/20
Menzelen (Germany), ca. 413
Rome, bed of the Tiber (Italy), ca. 415/20
Certosa di Pavia (Italy), ca. 414?
Cherchel (Algeria), ca. 420
Furfooz (Belgium), 425/30?
Velp (Netherlands), 425 +
Xanten (Germany), 425/30?
Aquileia (Italy), 425/30
Argay (France), ca. 430
Nonantola (Italy), ca. 430
Comiso (Sicily), ca. 430/5
Trabki Mate/Klein-Tromp (Poland), ca. 435
Fano (Italy), ca. 435/40
Bina (Czechoslovakia), ca. 445
Szikancs (Hungary), ca. 450
SILVER HOARDS 17
Butera (Sicily), ca. 455
Cannitello (Italy), ca. 455
Combertault (France), 456/7
Izenave (France), ca. 460?
Tunisia, ca. 460
Rome, Casa delle Vestali (Italy), 472?
Radostowo/Rathstube (Poland), ca. 480
Lonray (France), ca. 480?
Tournai (Belgium), 481
“South Italy,” 476/80
Zeccone (Italy), 480/90
Izmit/Nicomedia (Turkey), 480/90
Abritus (Bulgaria), ca. 485
Reggio Emilia (Italy), 489/93
Vedrin (Belgium), ca. 495
Braone (Italy), ca. 495/500
Horvat Rimmon (Israel) I, ca. 500; II, ca. 500
Midlum (Netherlands), ca. 530
The list does not go beyond a.p. 500 save in the case of Midlum, which includes a group of
coins evidently put together in the 470s. The impression given by the list as a whole, that most
gold hoards have been found in the West, is of course as misleading as it is inevitable. Many
hoards must have come to light in the East, for Constantinopolitan solidi and tremisses are
common for almost all emperors. They have been dispersed or melted down, however, or have
otherwise disappeared without trace. The almost complete absence of gold hoards from Britain,
on the other hand, must be due to the province having managed its affairs on a silver rather
than on a gold basis, for the recording of hoards in Britain is reasonably satisfactory. Many of
the hoards are not important for chronology, but a few are crucial, notably the Trabki Mate
(Klein-Tromp), Bina, Comiso, and Szikancs hoards. The third and fourth of these, with the Casa
delle Vestali hoard from Rome, are also impressive because of their size, especially the Szikancs
hoard with 1,439 solidi, no doubt originally 1,440 or the equivalent of 20 Roman lbs. of gold.
Some of them, notably the Vedrin hoard, have stimulated the scholars responsible for their
publication into masterly dissertations on particular mints or coin series.
(2) Silver Hoards
Since the minting of silver coin on any substantial scale ended in ca. 410, the silver hoards
of the fifth century have nothing like the same wide distribution in time and space as have those
of gold. The important study by Callu on silver output and hoards between 324 and 392 (Callu
1980b) covers material of the first half of Arcadius’ reign, as also does Depeyrot 1982. Few
hoards are known later than the reigns of the two brothers, and even those of the last decades
of the fourth century are virtually limited to Britain, where they occur on a remarkable scale.
Most subsequent hoards in Gaul and Germany take the form of grave-goods, or appear as ad-
juncts of the hoards of Hacksilber that are a feature of the invasion period (see below, p. 20).
Hoard evidence from the East is virtually nonexistent, and there is strikingly little even from
Italy and Spain.
18 HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND
The British silver hoards are the most astonishing numismatic phenomenon of the late
fourth century and the opening decade of the fifth. A list of no fewer than 63, carefully analyzed
by emperor and mint, was published by Archer in 1979, and more have come to light since. The
general phenomenon of why silver should have been hoarded in this particular province was
discussed at length by Evans in the context of the North Mendip hoard from near Bristol and
of others from Somerset (Evans 1915) and by Pearce in that of the Terling hoard of 1824 (Pearce
1933a). It has probably to be correlated with the almost complete absence of gold hoards, with
Britain using silver in preference to gold for substantial transactions and its neighbors doing the
opposite (cf. Carson 1975). Evans’ suggestion that the silver came from the Mendip mines, and
after conversion into coin at Trier returned to Britain to pay the mining lessees, has persuaded
few, if only because the hoards are less concentrated in the Somerset region than he supposed.
Nor is the suggestion (Archer 1979, 29-30) that it was because Roman authority collapsed more
abruptly in Britain than elsewhere very satisfactory; one would expect the prolonged fighting in
Gaul to have resulted in widespread hoarding of silver if this had been in extensive use, which
does not seem to have been the case. There was, on the contrary, considerable hoarding of gold,
which does not occur in Britain at the time. Most of the coins in British hoards are siliquae. A
number of hoards, notably those from Grovely Wood 1906 (Hill 1906), Kempston 1978 (Carson
and Burnett 1979a, 105), Otterbourne I 1978 (Carson and Burnett 1979b), South Ferriby
(O’Neil 1935), Whorlton 1810 (Carson and Burnett 1979c), and Bromham 1981 (Burnett and
Robinson 1984), as well as the North Mendip hoard itself, have included miliarenses, though
none any more substantial multiples, and the Terling hoard included four solidi also. The later
hoards contain large numbers of clipped siliquae, a phenomenon discussed in another section
(below, pp. 37-9).
The dating of the later hoards is a matter that has occasioned some difference of opinion.
A high proportion end with coins of Arcadius and Honorius and must therefore be later than
393, but do they necessarily predate 408? The question was discussed by Pearce in the context
of the Terling hoard (Pearce 1933a, 170-81; cf. also Mattingly et al. 1937, 41-2), his dating
criteria for hoards of the period being (a) the relative numbers of coins of Theodosius I, Arca-
dius, and Honorius and (b) the relative numbers of the three from Milan, the chief siliqua mint
at the turn of the century, since coins of Theodosius I would cease to have been struck in 395
and those of Honorius would after this date be minted at Milan in much greater numbers than
those of his brother. But how much later, if supplies of fresh coin from the continent were not
readily available? The presence or absence of coins of Constantine III provides a possible point
of reference, and the one “British” hoard containing these (Coleraine)—it is really extra-
imperial, though its contents were clearly put together in Britain—must have been buried in
407-11 or later. But does the absence of his coins from hoards that are otherwise very similar,
such as the Whorlton 1810 hoard (Carson and Burnett 1979c), imply that these are necessarily
prior to 407, or can they be later? Forty years ago the tendency was to allow the continued use
of coined silver into the 420s or even beyond, but the general preference today is for earlier
dates and a quite abrupt ending to the use of coined metal in the province.
Several of the more important British hoards have been noted already, notably those that
contained miliarenses as well as siliquae, and the many hoards with clipped siliquae, which are
consequently late in date, are discussed elsewhere (below, pp. 37-9). The East Harptree 1887
hoard (Evans 1888) and the Canterbury 1962 hoard (Painter 1965; Johns and Potter 1985)
contained silver ingots as well as coins, and the Canterbury hoard silver spoons as well. O’Neil’s
account of the Sproxton 1811 hoard (O’Neil 1934) gives the weights of the individual coins,
SILVER HOARDS 19
something relatively unusual at that date, and most recent hoard descriptions have been punc-
tilious in this respect: Deepdale/Barton-upon-Humber 1979-81 (Burnett and Whitwell 1981,
1984), Freckenham 1930 (Bland 1984), Osbournby 1979/80 (Bland and White 1984), Otter-
bourne II 1980 (Burnett 1984c). The same is also the case for recent descriptions of hoards
containing clipped siliquae.
Recorded hoards of the last decades of the fourth century outside Britain are few. The only
one of great importance, that found in 1953 or 1954 at San Genesio, 6 km from Pavia, and
admirably described by Ulrich-Bansa (1954), is chiefly remarkable for the extraordinary array
of six-siliqua multiples (8) and miliarenses (90) that it contained; even its 396 siliquae are pieces
of choice, their average weight being well in excess of most others of the period. It contained,
however, only a single siliqua of Arcadius, struck at Aquileia, and since it contained no silver
coins of Milan, where minting in this metal started under Magnus Maximus in 387, it must have
been buried very soon after Arcadius’ accession (383). The only hoard at all resembling the
British series is one that came to light in 1962 at Kastel, a suburb of Wiesbaden and an ancient
castellum controlling the crossing of the Rhine at Mainz (Alféldi 1968). It consisted of personal
ornaments of a military character—a silver fibula, three rings, metal attachments for a belt and
scabbard—and a mass of gold and silver coins. The 16 solidi ended with Arcadius and Honorius,
and the siliquae were almost entirely ones of Arcadius and Honorius. Of these there were at
least 380, divided almost equally between Milan and Rome, but with over 20 of Aquileia and
none of Ravenna. There were also 12 Lyon siliquae of Constantine III, so the date of burial was
probably 408 or 409. Many of the coins were badly damaged by corrosion, so the total can be
given only approximately as 408 whole coins plus 272 fragments.
An unrecorded Eastern silver hoard, comparable to that of San Genesio in the unusual
nature of its contents, is the one that provided the large number of miliarenses of Theodosius
II (306) and Honorius (782) of the mint of Constantinople that began to come on the market in
the 1960s. The coins were all in very fine condition, with many die-links, and the hoard must
have contained many more than the twenty or so specimens at first alleged. It evidently differed
from that of San Genesio in that the coins were all of a single mint and it apparently included
no siliquae, or at least very few, for no coins of this denomination and attributable to the same
period have made a surprise appearance on the market. Presumably it represented a consign-
ment of ceremonial coins that in some fashion had gone astray, while the San Genesio coins,
despite their strong ceremonial element, were from a variety of mints and emperors and had
evidently been accumulated over a few years by some high official. Enquiries in the coin trade
as to the place of origin of the Theodosian hoard brought the most varied replies, with guesses
fluctuating between Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and Turkey.
A slightly later silver hoard, found at Fano in 1956, is also highly unusual in its composition,
for it was made up of siliquae, half-siliquae, semisses, and tremisses, with only a single solidus.
(see Appendix 3, s.v. Fano). Such a mixture of fractional gold and fractional silver suggests
contributions or offerings from different sources which there had been no opportunity to
change into larger denominations. Unfortunately the description of the hoard, which dates
from the late 420s or the 430s, is not as complete as could be wished.
The majority of silver coins of the middle decades of the fifth century have come from
grave-finds in France and Germany and had usually been mounted or pierced to be used as
jewelry. Those from Germany are mainly crude imitations of Roman coins of the late fourth
and early fifth centuries, with occasionally some admixture of denarii going back to the Princi-
pate. An important group from the cemetery of Béckingen in Baden has been studied by Alféldi
20 HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND
(1962), Nau (1966), and Lafaurie (1964c), and in the context of a number of similar imitations
from other sites by Martin (1982). More relevant to the strictly imperial series are the two finds
of the rare siliquae struck at Trier in the names of Valentinian III and Theodosius II (below, pp.
150-1, 238-9) from Kleinhtiningen near Basel (1933) (Cahn 1937; King 1988, 199-206) and
Arcy-Sainte-Restitue (Aisne), southeast of Soissons (Barthélemy 1878; Lafaurie 1964b). Similar
coins have come to light at Genainville (Val d’Oise), northwest of Paris (Mitard 1969, 1978), and
in a tomb excavated at Mailly-le-Camp (Aube), in northeastern France south of Chalons-sur-
Marne, though the latter are somewhat later in date (Lafaurie 1988). A detailed list and analysis
of hoards and single finds of silver coins of the later fifth and the sixth centuries from France
and neighboring lands was published by Lafaurie in an appendix to his study of a silver coin
found in 1961 at Fleury-sur-Orne in Normandy (Lafaurie 1964a, 197-222), but it could now be
substantially expanded.
The other context in which silver is found in the fifth century is that of Hacksilber, that is, in
hoards of cut-up silver plate which were the result of barbarian raids in the Empire, and some-
times including coins as well. Gold coins are rare but do occur, notably the 21 solidi ending with
Constantine III that made part of the Gross Bodungen hoard from Thuringia (Appendix 3, s.v.
Gross Bodungen). Silver siliquae, invariably ending with either Arcadius, Honorius, or Constan-
tine III (list in Griinhagen 1954, 60-3), are a more usual component. Normally the coins are
few, inadequately described, and although helpful in dating the hoards are without numismatic
importance. This is true of the four in the Traprain Law hoard from Scotland (Curle 1923, 91:
1 Valens, 1 Valentinian II, 2 Honorius) and of the eight in the Hostentorp find (Griinhagen
1954, 62-3, no. 4; coins in Breitenstein 1946, 22—4, no. 36) and the five in the Simmersted Mose
find (Griinhagen 1954, 63, no. 5), both from Denmark and both ending with Honorius. Much
more important was the Coleraine hoard from northern Ireland (Griinhagen 1954, 60-1, no.
1; coins in Porter and Carruthers 1855; Mattingly et al. 1937), which was closer to the abundant
supply of silver coin in Britain—the Traprain material, found near Edinburgh, came from the
Continent—and included nearly 1,500 siliquae, of which nearly two-thirds were clipped (see
below, pp. 37—9). Since two coins were of Constantine III, it must have been buried in 407/11 or
later. Mattingly suggested a date of ca. 420 for burial on the ground that this is likely to have
occurred some years after the date of the latest coin, but insofar as this argument involved the
assumption that silver coin was still in regular use, it is not very convincing, though such a date
is not impossible. The statement in Archer (1979, 31), that the hoard contained a coin of Hon-
orius struck at the mint of Trier ca. 420, is erroneous.
By the second half of the fifth century, the minting of silver within the Empire was too rare
and occasional for hoards of contemporary silver coins to be easily conceivable. When the Frank-
ish king Childeric was buried in great state at Tournai in 481, his heirs were able to include a
hundred current imperial solidi among his grave-goods, and while there were twice as many
silver coins, these were all denarii, mainly of the second century A.D., which must have repre-
sented some chance find that had fallen into the king’s hands (Appendix 3, s.v. Tournai); there
were no contemporary siliquae or half-siliquae at all. The only known hoard of these comes
from North Africa, and it was made up not of imperial issues but of pseudo-imperial Vandal
imitations of Ravenna issues of Honorius (see pp. 71, 206). The first account described it as
containing at least eight siliquae and one half-siliqua and as having been found in Tunisia before
1976 (S. Bendall in Coin Hoards 2 [1976], 66, fig. 17; 77, no. 322), but subsequent study brought
the minimum up to 49 siliquae and 28 halves with the true total possibly running into hundreds
(Morrisson and Schwartz 1982, 151) and put the date of finding back to the 1960s. What is
BRONZE HOARDS 21
significant is that it consisted entirely of Vandalic imitations, or degenerate copies of these, and
no imperial issues at all. By the 480s silver was being minted again in Italy on a respectable scale,
so that hoards are possible, but none have yet come to light.
(3) Bronze Hoards
Bronze hoards are in most historical periods exceptional. This is partly because a person
owning coins in all three metals will prefer to conceal the more valuable ones, partly because the
token element in bronze is usually so considerable that if it is demonetized it loses virtually all
its value, while gold and silver coins retain at least their worth as bullion. Later Roman bronze
hoards are nonetheless numerous and often very large, running to hundreds and sometimes
even thousands of coins. The reason is partly because a substantial fraction of the population
conducted all their affairs in terms of bronze and had only limited access to coins of precious
metal. It is also partly because a person forced to abandon his home would take his gold and
silver with him if he could, but instead of burdening himself with the heavier and less valuable
bronze would hide it in the hope of future recovery.
The documentation of late Roman bronze hoards is nonetheless very uneven. Eastern AE
2 of the Valentinianic and Theodosian periods is, from the point of view of collectors, extremely
common, but we know virtually nothing of the hoards from which it must have come. Most of
these were presumably found in countries with no tradition of dealing with them and were
dispersed without any record being kept of their contents. A few Valentinianic hoards of AE 2
have been published, notably the El-Kab hoard from Egypt (Bingen 1948), but there seems to
be only one Theodosian hoard of the same kind, also from Egypt but incomplete and with its
exact provenance unknown (Todd 1964). An important Western hoard of over 1,000 AE 2 from
Hemptinne in Belgium (Lallemand 1967b) was buried in the reign of Magnus Maximus and
contained no coins of Arcadius. The demonetization of AE 2 in 395 was remarkably effective. A
hoard of ca. 500 coins from Caiffa in Syria which dates from ca. 400 consisted entirely of AE 3
and AE 4 (Pearce 1931b), and AE 2 is entirely absent from hoards of the following decades.
Most of our knowledge of Theodosian hoards comes from the West, essentially from Britain
and Gaul, so that we are much better informed about Western AE 3 and 4 than Eastern AE 2.
Even for the West the documentation is uneven. A full gazetteer of the very numerous bronze
hoards from Britain, with detailed if rather unsystematic analyses of their contents, is provided
by Brickstock (1987, 309-407), and a similar survey exists for Belgium (Lallemand 1983; see
also Thirion 1967 and Lallemand 1968a). The hoards of western Germany are covered in the
relevant volumes of FMRD (cf. also Christ 1960, esp. maps 22—3 and related text), and there is
a good bibliographical survey for Austria (Dembski 1977), but no equivalent publications exist
for other parts of the Empire. Blanchet’s study of Gallic hoards in relation to the invasions has
useful pages on the light they throw on the fates of specific localities (Blanchet 1900, 49, 64-6),
but its hoard summaries include few numismatic details—his book was written before the dating
of individual issues had begun to be worked out—and its information is in any case out of date.
Callu’s study of the bronze coinage of the western half of the Empire between 348 and 392
includes a comprehensive list of published hoards in approximate chronological order of burial
(Callu 1980a), and Depeyrot’s work on the comparative size of fourth-century issues in Gaul
necessarily embodies much hoard material (Depeyrot 1982, 136-52). Reece's studies of imperial
aes in museums of France, the Rhineland, and northern Italy, and from fourteen sites in Britain
(Reece 1967, 1971, 1972a, b; results summarized in Reece 1973), are only marginally relevant
to the late fourth century and not usually helpful in the classification of particular issues, though
22 HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND
it is significant that a final class, not required elsewhere, had to be provided to take account of
the Urbs Roma Felix coins of 402-8 in Italian collections (Reece 1971, 167). The usefulness of
many of the older hoard descriptions, even those by such eminent scholars as Mattingly, Pearce,
and Sutherland, tends in any case to be limited, for they were often simply concerned with the
recording of rulers and mint-marks, in the hope of filling the gaps in our knowledge of the
latter, and neglected numbers and weights. Proposed dates of burial are often eccentric:
the Bermondsey hoard (Mattingly 1946b), which would now be dated ca. 400, was pushed for-
ward by Mattingly to ca. 450.
There is no need to refer in detail to the Theodosian hoards from Britain, since Brickstock
(1987) is a sufficient guide. For the neighboring regions of the Continent, the principal hoards,
all dating from the last five years of the fourth century and all outstandingly well described, are
the Haarlemmermeer hoard (Evers 1966), the Lierre hoard (Lallemand 1965a, 1968a), and the
“Boulogne” hoard (Delmaire 1983), from the Netherlands, Belgium, and France respectively.
The Haarlemmermeer hoard contained over 12,000 coins—not all of it was recovered—and
came from outside the imperial frontier, so that it contains an unusually high proportion of
denominations demonetized in 395. The Lierre hoard, found near Antwerp in 1937 and dating
from ca. 397, consisted of nearly 3,000 coins—originally about 4,000—that were mainly AE 4.
The “Boulogne” hoard of over 1,353 coins—its original size is unknown—takes its name from
the museum where it is preserved but was probably found in the neighborhood. The bulk of it
consists of Theodosian AE 4 (1,112 identifiable coins), and its meticulous description by Del-
maire has been expanded into a valuable discussion of all aspects of the circulating medium in
the northwestern part of the Empire in the late fourth century. Other Low Country hoards of
the years 395/400 are two from the Belgian province of Limburg, one from Helchteren (Lalle-
mand 1960) and the other from Koninksem (Lallemand 1965b), both well described but smaller
and of less importance. There is a third hoard of nearly 2,600 coins from Hapert in the Dutch
province of Noord Brabant, but of it we have only a brief account (Knippenberg 1952). A small
hoard of ca. 405, found at Cologne in 1886, was at the time of publication (Weber 1892) of
considerable value for the dating of certain types. A hoard of 1,545 AE found in a cemetery at
Syracuse in 1908 and apparently dating from ca. 400 was, on the other hand, so inadequately
described (Orsi 1909; Cesano 1913, 525—6) as to be useless.
In the half century after 410 the decline in the number of bronze hoards is dramatic. Britain
and Gaul drop out of the picture entirely, though the finding of isolated later coins in Gaul has
sometimes been noted, for example, that of a Rome AE 4 of the later years of Honorius (LRBC
828) at Tongres in Belgium (Lallemand 1983, 83 note 3). The Porta Collina hoard of 320 coins—
it was perhaps not complete—is the earliest of the Italian hoards of which we have a usable
description, that of Laffranchi (1919), though he misdated it a decade too early (394/8). It is one
of our chief sources of information on Honorius’ Urbs Roma Felix coinage of Rome of 403-8 and
was probably buried while this was still being issued, since the hoard contained nothing of Pris-
cus Attalus. A hoard of ca. 425 of nearly 800 coins from Ostia (Cesano 1913, 546-51), which
ended with ones of Theodosius II and John, is too imprecisely described to be useful.
We then, so far as Italy and the northwestern Balkans are concerned, have to jump to the
440s. The account (Gren 1934; see also Vasi¢é 1980, 1988) of two huge hoards of some 100,000
coins found in 1902 at Kostolac, the site of the ancient Viminacium near the junction of the
Morava and the Danube southeast of Belgrade, is neither easy to use nor altogether reliable (see
review by Pearce in NC® 16 [1936], 330-3). Some of the descriptions are clearly incorrect, and
BRONZE HOARDS 23
there is occasional confusion between coins of Theodosius I/II and Valentinian II/III. Its latest
dated coins are VT/XXX/V coins of Theodosius II (as 392-3) and VOT/XX of Valentinian III,
but it included no monogram coins of Theodosius. The same is true of the better described but
much smaller hoard of 163 coins (plus fragments) concealed in an ox-bone and found in 1932
at Minturno, a locality overlooking the gulf of Gaeta between Rome and Naples (Newell 1933).
The latest coins in it were of the same two issues, with no monogram coins of Theodosius—their
presence in Italy would be less likely—and the date is probably about the same.
A pendant to the Italian hoards are a number from North Africa. The earliest three, pub-
lished by Turcan (1961), are from Tipasa, a site in Algeria 37 miles from Algiers itself that was
excavated in 1957/8 by Col. Baradez. The earliest of these, Tipasa II (101 coins), found like
three of the others in the Maison des Fresques (Turcan 1961, 206-7, 237—9) seems to belong to
the early years of Honorius, despite Turcan’s dating of it to ca. 425/430 on the strength of the
rather uncertain attribution of two coins in it to Valentinian III. The second in time (Tipasa 1),
of 239 coins (Turcan 1961, 201—6, 235-7), can be dated ca. 415; it contains four Urbs Roma Felix
coins of Honorius, two of the contemporary “three-emperors” type of Arcadius, and one coin
of the usurper Maximus of Barcelona (410-11). The smaller and later hoard (74 coins), Tipasa
III (Turcan 1961, 208-12, 240-1), ends with three coins of Honorius and one allegedly of
Valentinian III, but since it includes three Cartagine coins (below, p. 224) it probably belongs to
the 430s. Much more important is the El-Djem hoard from Tunisia (Kent 1988a) of over 1,000
coins, some 900 of which are legible. Kent gives a listing of its contents and description of each
type, with no description or weight of the individual pieces, but it is remarkable in its represen-
tation of Roman issues of Valentinian III and of the local minting of Carthage. It probably
belongs to about the end of Valentinian III’s reign.
Few Eastern bronze hoards of the reign of Theodosius II have been recorded. Two of the
most interesting are ones of 412 and 137 coins respectively, for the most part in good condition,
that were found during excavations in 1966/8 in the burnt debris of houses in the ancient Dacian
fortress of Sucidava, situated on the north bank of the Danube and controlling a bridge across
the river close to its confluence with the Isker 3 km west of Corabia. The hoards, which have
been meticulously published (Poenaru Bordea and Barbu 1970; on Sucidava, Tudor 1965), date
from the second decade of the fifth century and probably represent the modest savings of two
members of the garrison. Also important is an almost complete hoard of 140 coins, acquired at
Charleroi in 1977 but believed to have come from Turkey, which can be dated to 415/20 and of
which a careful description exists (Doyen 1985). Four hoards from Egypt were published by
Milne, one (H.6) of ca. 410 (Milne 1920, Hoard B), two others of ca. 420 found by Petrie at
Hawara (Petrie 1889, 13; Milne 1926; Pearce 1938e, 117-18), and the fourth (KW) found in
1924 at Kom Washim, the ancient Karanis, in the Fayum (Milne 1926). Not their least remark-
able feature is the presence in them of Western coins. The Hawara hoard initially described by
Milne as Hoard B and subsequently as H.6 included 14 Urbs Roma Felix coins of Rome of the
years 403-8, and the Karanis hoard is dated by a coin of Emperor John. Petrie was also the
source of a hoard of ca. 410, consisting of about 1,300 coins, which was briefly commented on
by Pearce (193 1a).
For the Eastern bronze coinage of Leo I and Zeno, we depend mainly on two hoards pub-
lished by Adelson and Kustas in great detail, with the weights of each individual coin and often
a drawing of the monograms on individual specimens. The earlier hoard, given to the Yale
collection in 1932 and of unspecified provenance, ends in the reign of Leo I (Adelson and
Kustas 1960). The later one, which was acquired for the American Numismatic Society at Volo
24 HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND
in Thessaly and was probably found in the neighborhood, ends in that of Zeno (Adelson and
Kustas 1962). Another hoard from Corinth, ending in the reign of Leo I, was described more
perfunctorily by Mattingly (1931), and a more satisfactory account of it is now impossible, for it
was included in the second Lawrence sale (lot 993), bought by an American collector, resold by
him as of no interest to the dealer Paul Tinchant, and the contents dispersed among the latter's
clients or melted down. Also of the same period, and much better described by Pearce and Wood
(1934), is a hoard of over 2,000 coins, ending with ones of Leo, that came from somewhere in
Dalmatia. Syria has provided one important hoard of 2,430 coins, ending with Zeno and over
half of them in good enough condition to be described and identified (Seeger 1976). It re-
sembles in many respects the Volo hoard but contains some new varieties of monogram and an
otherwise unknown type of Zeno. It is also remarkable in including a few Western nummi of
Majorian (1), Severus III (5), and Odovacar (1). A hoard of ca. 470 from southwestern Asia
Minor (Pearce 1935a) is of less consequence.
Egypt also produced its quota of hoards of the late fifth century ending with coins of Zeno.
Most of those that have been published were found by Flinders Petrie during his Hawara exca-
vations in the 1880s, and their publishing history is complicated. Petrie himself, who was little
interested in coins, described only a couple of the late hoards, and that in the most summary
fashion, though he did make drawings of the more unusual types and was the first scholar to
illustrate the rare issue of Leo I and Leo II having two seated figures as its reverse type (Petrie
1889, 13 and pl. 24). Milne subsequently published the same two hoards, much more satisfac-
torily (Milne 1926, hoards H.4, H.5), and in due course Pearce published three more from the
same source (Pearce 1938e, hoards 2, 3, 4). Milne’s 1926 publication also described a hoard
found in 1923/4 during excavations at Qau-el-Kebir, south of Asyut (Milne 1926, Hoard QK).
The situation regarding the Hawara coins is complicated by the fact that many of them passed
to the British Museum by gift from Jesse Haworth, who financed the excavation, but apparently
without any indication of provenance, which led Warwick Wroth to treat them as “Vandalic” in
his catalogue of the Vandal coins in the museum. A high proportion of those in all the hoards
consist in any case of illegible and clearly unofficial issues, so that their contents throw more
light on the general state of the circulating medium than they do on the regular coinage of the
period.
Nummi also circulated in great quantities in North Africa, although since from 439 onward
the central provinces were in Vandal hands and used locally minted bronze, strictly imperial
issues tended to be concentrated in Mauretania in the west and Tripolitania in the east. There
was, however, some interchange between Vandal and Roman regions—less in the West, where
Mauretania was very isolated—and vice versa. The small nummi also continued to circulate well
into the sixth century and even beyond, so that many of the most important hoards of them are
sixth century in date.
From Mauretania there are once again hoards from Tipasa described by Turcan. The larg-
est (1,200 legible coins) is Tipasa III, also from the Maison des Fresques (Turcan 1961, 213-34,
242-55), and belongs effectively to the mid-fifth century, with nearly 140 coins of Valentinian
III and 16 of Marcian, after which there are two of Leo I, one doubtfully attributed to Romulus
Augustulus, and 18 of Justinian, together with a large number of unattributed or partly attrib-
uted imitations. The coins of Justinian, if correctly read and not intruders, would date it after
527, but in view of the absence of coins of Leo and Zeno, and of any Vandal issues, one must
doubt if it is really later than 460. Two further hoards, ending with coins of Leo I and Zeno
respectively, are described in Turcan (1984).
BRONZE HOARDS 25
The chief Italian bronze hoard of the second half of the fifth century at all adequately
recorded (Orsi 1910; Cesano 1913, 525-7) is one of 1,745 nummi from Monte Rosa in the Lipari
islands. It dates from ca. 460, the latest contents being apparently coins of Marcian (24), Avitus
(1), and Leo (1), but since 1,474 of the coins are unidentifiable through poor striking or wear
the final date is necessarily uncertain. A much smaller hoard of 188 coins plus fragments, much
better reported (Lallemand 1967a) and dating from ca. 475 (one coin of Zeno), came to light in
the Belgian excavations at Ordona, near Foggia in Apulia. Sixth-century hoards are sometimes
helpful, for it is hard to separate the coinages of the two periods; the best discussion remains
that of Cesano (1913). One important sixth-century hoard, from Massafra near Taranto, has
been carefully described (Hahn 1987, superseding Travaglini 1974). A sixth-century hoard of
418 nummi found near Perugia in 1896 and published by Gnecchi under the uncomplimentary
title of “Un ripostiglio miserabile” (Gnecchi 1897) is now at Dumbarton Oaks. It contains a
number of fifth-century coins, as well as earlier ones, but their extremely poor condition has
discouraged successive owners—Gnecchi, Gavazzi, Ulrich-Bansa, Grierson—from trying to
clean them. No doubt, if this were done, a few of the contents could be identified, but the meager
contribution this could make to knowledge seems outweighed by the desirability of keeping the
hoard intact in its original condition as evidence to the lowest depths to which Roman coinage
ever sank.
In addition to coins from hoards, large numbers of late fifth-century nummi have been part
of the excavation material from the major sites in the East, notably from Athens (Thompson
1954), Corinth (Bellinger 1930, but rather few in the year [1925] covered; the huge numbers in
the regular find reports are too briefly described to be useful), and Antioch (Waage 1952). The
accounts of these are of varying value, since, because of the huge numbers of coins involved,
individual groups have had to be presented in summary fashion and only pieces of particular
numismatic or historical interest could be specially noted. More valuable is the record of the site
finds from a spot near the village of Izvoarele on the south bank of the Danube in the Dobrudja,
for these included many nummi of Theodosius II (22), Marcian (28), Leo I (64), and Zeno (50),
as well as one of Basiliscus and a number of lead tokens of the period (below, p. 72), all of which
have been carefully described (Culica 1972). They included a new coin of Leo I with the mint-
mark NIC which was unknown to the authors of LRBC (below, p. 166). The few found in Histria,
another Dobrudja site, include some as late as Marcian (Poenaru Bordea 1971), but they are of
greater interest to the local historian than to the numismatist. The coins found in J. T. Wood's
excavation of the Artemision at Ephesus in the 1870s include a substantial number of the reigns
of Arcadius and Honorius (Milne 1925).
The end of Roman rule in the Danubian region has been extensively studied in the light of
the site finds of coins, together with a few hoards, notably by Alféldi (1924-6; cf. also Dembski
1977, 43-9). Some sites, notably the ancient Carnuntum at Deutsch Altenburg on the Danube
in Lower Austria, on the Austrian side of the Austro-Hungarian frontier, have produced an
abundance of finds and even a few hoards of the late fourth century that have been studied in
great detail (Hahn 1976). Another Austrian site, that of the ancient Aguntum in the Drautal
near Lienz in the Tyrol, has also produced large numbers of coins, the period of Arcadius/
Honorius being well represented and with a few attributed to that of Theodosius II/Valentinian
III (Karwiese 1974, 39-40; cf. Dembski 1977, 45). But the material from Austria is eclipsed in
importance by that from Richborough and Carthage, the only two Western localities that have
been studied in a manner comparable to the Eastern ones just cited, though the first was no
more than a large if strategically placed fort and the second was peripheral to the main stream
26 HISTORICAL AND NUMISMATIC BACKGROUND
of Western coinage. The coins at Richborough also came to an end in ca. 408, with none later
than Constantine III. There have of course been substantial finds on other British sites, in some
cases running into thousands of coins (cf. Ravetz 1964 and Reece 1972b, 1973), but in none on
the same scale as at Richborough.
Richborough (Rutupia), in Kent, on the estuary of the Stour between Sandwich and Rams-
gate, was one of the forts of the Saxon Shore illustrated in the Notitia Dignitatum. It was the
southern terminus of Watling Street and effectively the gateway to Britain in Roman times,
which accounts for the abundance of its numismatic harvest. John Leland in the sixteenth cen-
tury already described the finding on Richborough hill of “mo’ antiquites of Romayne money
than in any place in England.” Its systematic excavation between 1922 and 1938 by J. P. Bushe-
Foxe under the auspices of the Society of Antiquaries brought to light nearly 60,000 coins, a
few of gold or silver but the overwhelming majority of bronze. A high proportion, including
several hoards, belong to the decade prior to the Roman evacuation, with over 4,200 coins in
the name of Arcadius and nearly 1,000 in that of Honorius, to which must be added a fair
proportion of the 13,000 which could only be classified as “uncertain Theodosian.” The coins of
the late fourth and early fifth century are catalogued and discussed in the five successive vol-
umes of the excavation reports by (1) Hayter (1926, 110-12, 165-72); (2) Salisbury and Pearce
(1928, 110-19, 222-6); (3) Stebbing (1932, 189-95, 230-4); (4) Stebbing (1949, 275-80, 317—
8); and (5) Reece et al. (1968, 188-91, 199-218). A useful general survey was published by B. W.
Pearce (1940a), who had seen all the material and been responsible for the classification of much
of it, and the discussion by F. S. Salisbury of the significance of the coins in dating the end of
the Roman dominion in Britain has not lost its value (Salisbury 1927a, 1927b).
The other well-documented (though incomplete) series of site finds in the West comes from
Africa. Since the site of ancient Carthage is in process of being absorbed into what is now Tunis,
archaeologists from a number of countries, under the sponsorship of UNESCO, have been en-
gaged in the attempt to study and record as much as is possible before it is too late. Only the
University of Michigan contingent, responsible for what has been called the “ecclesiastical com-
plex,” has found any considerable number of coins, or at least has taken the trouble to publish
them, which it has done in quite meticulous fashion. The excavation reports from 1975 onward
have included detailed coin lists, initially by Buttrey (1976), subsequently by Buttrey and Hitch-
ner (1978) or Metcalf and Hitchner (1981), and finally by Metcalf (1981b, 1982), who in a fur-
ther article (Metcalf 1987) has summarized the finds of the years 1975-9 and discussed their
implications (see also Morrisson 1988). The overwhelming bulk of the 7,600 coins or coinlike
objects were of the Vandal and Byzantine periods, when Carthage was active as a mint, and
those of the reigns covered by this volume were relatively few in number: 30 of Arcadius, 12 of
Honorius, one of John, 16 of Theodosius II, one of Honoria, 22 of Valentinian III, five of
Marcian, four of Leo I, and one of Zeno. The only ones of special interest are an AE 4 of
Honoria which was previously unknown (Metcalf 1981a; below, p. 243) and the series of Valen-
tinian III. The virtual absence of later imperial coins was a consequence of the fact that the city
was in Vandal hands from 439 onward.
2
THE MONETARY SYSTEM
A. VALUES AND DENOMINATIONS
The basic monetary unit in the late Roman monetary system was the gold solidus, a coin
struck 72 to the Roman pound and weighing 4.55 g, or 24 siliquae in units of the time, the
siliqua or carat being a small weight equivalent to 0.189 g and the smallest unit in the Roman
weight system. Two fractions were struck, the semissis (half) and tremissis (one-third), and vari-
ous multiples up to the weight of a pound (327.45 g). The multiples, and initially the fractions
also, were struck on a quite limited scale, so that the solidus stood out as the gold coin par
excellence. These gold denominations are discussed in more detail in Section C below.
The basic silver coin was that called by numismatists a siliqua, on the assumption that it was
the equivalent of a gold carat and so worth 1/24th of a solidus. In the late fourth century it was
minted 144 to the pound with a weight of 2.27 g. There was also its double, the miliarense,
struck 72 to the pound and thus weighing 4.55 g, the same as the solidus. Numismatists have
generally followed the example of Elmer in calling it a “light” miliarense, since there was also
struck a “heavy” miliarense weighing 1/60th of a pound (5.46 g) that corresponded to an obso-
lete gold coin termed by numismatists an aureus. What contemporaries called it is unknown,
and “heavy miliarense” is as good a term as any, but “light” is unnecessary when referring to the
coin of 4.55 g. Latin speakers called it simply a miliarensis (masc.), though miliarense (neut.)
apparently also existed and is the more usual term today (Guey 1965b).
The early significance of the word is of some consequence in determining its initial value.
It does not occur before the mid-fourth century, and Mattingly indeed once suggested that it
was introduced in 348 and its name commemorated the millenary of the foundation of Rome.
Writers of the late Roman and early Byzantine periods had various explanations for it. The
metrologist Epiphanius of Salamis thought it came from miles, being destined for military pay,
but while troops and pay are connected in several languages—our own “soldier” comes from
solde and ultimately therefore from solidus—the relationship should have been in the other di-
rection, which is impossible. Another explanation, found in the so-called Nomic Glosses that ex-
plain unfamiliar words or terms occurring in the Byzantine legal codes, is that it implied a silver
unit worth 1/1,000th of a gold pound, but while this would give a good approximation to its
value, the etymology does not fit the form of the word and the approximation seems to be a
matter of chance. The most likely explanation (Callu 1980c) is that put forward by the fifth-
century metrologist Dardanius, known to us by a citation in John Lydus’ De mensibus (IV.9), that
the word implied a coin originally worth 1,000 “obols,” for the miliarense was struck 72 to the
pound and thus weighed 4 scripula of silver or 8 obols, the scripulum being sometimes divided
into 2 obols. The value of 8 obols of silver can be calculated from two texts of the 390s. The
first, of 28 December 396 (CTh XI.21.2) allows a gold solidus to be treated as the tax equivalent
27
28 THE MONETARY SYSTEM
of 25 pounds of bronze, thus implying a value relationship between gold and copper of 1:1,800.
The other, of 19 February 397 (CTh XIII.2.1), allows five solidi to be substituted for each pound
of silver due in taxes, implying a gold:silver ratio of 1:14.4. Combining these almost contempo-
rary provisions gives a silver:copper ratio of 14.4:1,800 or 1:125, so that a miliarense in the 390s
would have had a value of 8 x 125 = 1,000 “obols” of copper. This seems to establish its origin
and value.
The only term certainly used for a bronze coin is centenionalis. The essential texts are of 354
and 395. That of 8 March 354 (CTA [X.23.1; date corrected from 356 in PLRE 1.783, “Rufinus”
25), addressed to the praetorian prefect Rufinus and prohibiting speculative transfers of coin
from one province to another, allows the normal sales of merchandise brought from a distance
but not that of “pecunias quae more solito maiorinas vel centenionales communes appellant vel
veteras quas vetitas esse cognoscunt.” That of 12 April 395 (CTh IX.23.2) and addressed to
Dexter, praetorian prefect (in Italy), orders that only the centenionalis shall remain in circula-
tion, the minting of higher denominations being suspended, and forbids the changing of decar-
gyri nummt into other coins: “Centenionalem tantum nummum in conversatione publica tractari
praecipimus maioris pecuniae figuratione submota. Nullus igitur decargyrum nummum alio
audeat commutare.”
Since the year 395 saw the ending of AE 2, leaving only AE 3 and 4 in circulation, it seems
clear that AE 3 is the centenionalis, the AE 4 as its half being tacitly included with it in the
authorization for continued use. Its name has given rise to much speculation, Seeck (in RE
II1.1927) believing it to be 1/100th of a miliarense, Babelon (1901, 1.613) 1/100th of a siliqua,
and Mattingly (1927, 227, but cf. Mattingly 1960, 220-1) 1/100th of a solidus, while Callu at one
time believed it to be 1/100th of a pound of copper (Callu and Barrandon 1978, 841 note 27).
But Callu subsequently pointed out that the adjectival ending —-2o should not mean a fraction
but a multiple (cf. benio, quaternio), and has therefore argued that it represents 100 (notional)
denarii, an idea going far toward explaining the enormous prices in denarii found in Egyptian
papyri.
The meaning of pecunia maiorina is less clear. Some scholars have taken the vel, in the text
of 354, as meaning “or,” in which case pecunia maiorina is just a synonym for centenionalis (so
Pearce in RIC IX.xxix—xxx; Mattingly 1960, 221), while Elmer's view that the pecunia maiorina
was the higher denomination AE 2, the centenionalis AE 3, and the AE 4 a quarter-maiorina
(Elmer 1956) has been widely followed by others. Chastagnol’s reconstruction of a damaged
North African inscription (Chastagnol 1975) would in fact suggest that it was a distinct denom-
ination, but the reading may not be correct. Others have taken (pecunia) maiorina to be simply a
generic term for the higher denominations of small change, AE | and/or AE 2 according to
circumstances (cf. Alféldi 1963c, 102—3). The matter is so uncertain that most British and
French scholars prefer to adhere to the AE 2/AE 3/AE 4 terminology, and their example has
been followed here (see below, pp. 39-40).
B. METROLOGY AND FINENESS
The weights of late imperial coins were based on the Roman pound, the original standard
for which in Republican days had been kept in the temple of Juno Moneta at Rome and of which
exact copies would have been made available to the mints. How exact the copies were initially,
and how often and how exactly they were checked, we do not know, but the experience of
European mints in medieval and early modern times shows how supposedly exact copies of
widely used weights normally came to diverge from their models through use and occasional
METROLOGY AND FINENESS 29
TABLE 3
Roman Weights
In terms Weight in grams
of the Roman
pound Béckh-Hultsch Naville Crawford
libra = 12 unciae 1
uncia = 24 scripula 1/12
(solidus) = 4 scripula 1/72
scripulum = 2 oboli 1/288
obolus = 3 siliquae 1/576
siliqua 1/1728
injury. The structure of the weight system is known from the metrological texts collected by
Hultsch (1864-6), two of the period covered in this volume being those of Bishop Epiphantus
of Salamis, who wrote a treatise on weights and measures in the late fourth century, and the
Carmen de ponderibus of the early fifth century. Other relevant ones were incorporated in the
Etymologies of St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) or survive separately as annotations in manuscripts
of the Carolingian or post-Carolingian periods. The essential elements 1n it, so far as the coinage
is concerned, are set out in Table 3.
The system was basically duodecimal. Uncia was a twelfth because there were twelve unciae
(from unguzs, “[thumb]nail”) to the foot. Scripulum or scrupulum (1.e., “pebble”) or scruple was
the name given to an arbitrarily fixed unit of suitable size and referred to the actual material
out of which the weights were originally made (cf. English “stone”). Only stliqua was a naturally
occurring unit, the average weight of the seed of the carob tree or St. John’s wort (Ceratonia
siltqua) and widely used, originally by jewelers for weighing gold, in many of the lands bordering
the Mediterranean. It was standardized at slightly different figures in different regions, the
Greco-Roman carat being now conventionally taken as the equivalent of 0.189 g, while slightly
heavier ones prevailed in Egypt (0.196 g) and Syria (0.212 g), at least in the early Muslim period
(Grierson 1960, 251-6).
The “traditional” weight of the Roman pound was that proposed by Béckh (1838, 165), his
figure of 6,165 Parisian grains being converted into metric units as 327.45 g. Since it was ac-
cepted by Hultsch, the acknowledged master in the metrological field (Hultsch 1882, 160-1,
706), and by Mommsen, the greatest of Roman numismauists, it became one of the fixed points
in ancient metrology. In 1920 Béckh’s methods and material were subjected to a devastating
criticism by Lucien Naville, a dealer and scholar at Geneva whose hobby was ancient metrology,
who proposed the lighter figure of 322.56 g (Naville 1920, 42-60, 257-63; 1951, 108-9). This
weight has been accepted by Lafaurie and Bastien, two of the best scholars in the late Roman
period, though Thirion, who restudied the material in the light of the Liberchies hoard of the
second century, proposed the higher figure of 326.34 g (Thirion 1972). Panvini Rosati, while
agreeing that 322.56 g matched exactly the average weight of the 423 fifth-century solidi in the
Comiso hoard, had to admit that it made no allowance for wear (Panvini 1953, 437—40). After
much elaborate discussion in the BSFN for 1974 and 1975 of the technical problems involved, a
competent statistician pointed out with some acerbity that, given the state of the material, no
statistical treatment could be expected to provide a figure accurate to two places of decimals
(Guey 1976). Crawford has proposed the figure of 324 g, halfway between those of Béckh and
30 THE MONETARY SYSTEM
Naville, conveniently duodecimal, and not making any pretension to accuracy closer than the
nearest gram (Crawford 1974, II1.590—2). The weights of the gold multiples in the Emona hoard
(Jelo¢nik 1967, 231-2), however, suggest that this is still too low, for the average weights of the
single, double, and triple solidi in it imply figures for the solidus of 4.50 g, 4.55 g, and 4.49 g,
and since most calculations over the past century have been based on a pound of 327.45 g, we
have preferred to retain this figure here while admitting it to be more precise than the evidence
warrants. Table 3 gives the weights of the fractions according to the three generally current
systems, and shows how small the differences will be where coins are concerned.
The silver and copper coins were struck al marco, to use the terminology of late medieval
mints in Italy, that is, so many pieces being struck to the Roman pound without any attempt at
control of the weights of individual coins. Gold coins, on the other hand, were struck al pezzo,
that is, so many to the pound but within quite narrow margins of accuracy and with the weight
of each coin being checked before it left the mint. Constantine prescribed, in slightly ludicrous
detail, the use of the balance in the acceptance of gold for taxation purposes (CTA XII.7.1), and
Julian ordered the establishment of an official weigher (zygostates) in each municipality to settle
disputes over the correct weights of solidi (CTh XII.7.2). The weights of gold coins do in fact
vary only within very narrow limits, and the need for frequently checking those of sums of gold,
and presumably of silver, resulted in the proliferation of bronze weights (exagza), often marked
with the units in the form of silver or niello inlays (SOL VI = 6 solidi, NIB = 12 voutouata, PB
= 2 ovyxta, ie., ounces). They can sometimes be dated by their having a ruler’s name (e.g.,
DNHONORI — VSAVG on either side of a profile bust on a square exagzum), but more often the
identification is in general terms (e.g., DDDNNNCCC above three facing busts) or the type is a
standing Moneta holding a balance and accompanied by the legend EXAGIVM SOLIDI (cf.
Babelon, “Exagium,” in Daremberg-Saglio IJ.1.873—8; Lavagne 1972). In most museums such
exagua are grouped into the general category of bronzes, as in the Bibliothéque Nationale (Ba-
belon and Blanchet 1895, nos. 2268—90) and the few at Dumbarton Oaks (DOC Ant I, nos. 75—
84), but there are some separate catalogues of important collections, notably those in Austria
(Pink 1938) and Spain (Palol 1949) and the Naville collection in the Musée d’art et d’histoire at
Geneva (Dirr 1964). (The outstanding Menil Foundation Collection is unfortunately unpub-
lished, but see Vikan and Nesbitt 1980.) In the sixth century such weights began to be made of
glass, which could not easily be tampered with, and the weights bear the names or monograms
of local eparchs or other officials (Monneret 1922). It was from the Byzantines that the use of
glass weights passed to the Arabs, the people with whom their use is most commonly associated.
Juhan’s regulation on the weighing of coins was followed almost immediately, under Valen-
tinian 1, by a tightening up of the conditions under which they were struck. His legislation and
its consequences have recently been the subject of a careful study by a group of French scholars
(Amandry et al. 1982; Morrisson et al. 1985), the technical side of the work having been carried
out by J. N. Barrandon at the nuclear research center at Orléans. Two constitutions of 10 No-
vember 366 and 8 January 367 (CTh XII.6.12, 13), addressed to the prefect of Italy and the
count of the sacred largesses respectively, ordered that taxes should henceforward be collected
not in coin but in ingot form, so that adulterint solid? would be eliminated, and a third of 4 August
367 (CTh XII.7.3), addressed to the vicar of Africa, laid down that the tax collectors were not
simply to receive such ingots as were offered them but ensure all gold was refined under the
eyes of the imperial officials. The effect and the effectiveness of these regulations is apparent
from Barrandon’s analyses, which show that while earlier solidi are normally about 95% fine, a
figure in itself remarkable, those minted subsequently rarely fall below 99%, the proportion of
METROLOGY AND FINENESS 31
silver being reduced to a tenth of what it had been previously (Amandry et al. 1982, 279-81;
Morrisson et al. 1985, 85-111). This exceptional degree of purity continued down to the reign
of Anastasius I, under whom it fell back to about 95%, presumably through the abandonment
of these frequent refinings of the precious metal before reuse. One may suspect that the em-
peror, who had a well-deserved reputation for financial good sense, regarded them as not worth
the expense. It was these regulations of 366/7 that resulted, in January or February 368, in the
introduction of the formula OB (for obryzum, the technical term for refined gold) on the coins,
either in the field or linked with COM and referring to the official who appears in the Notitia
Dignitatum as comes obryzi but more usually attached to the mint signature in such formulae as
CONOB, TROB, MDOB, etc.
At exactly the same time (Amandry et al. 1982, 283 note 23), the abbreviation PS (for pu-
sulatum, “refined silver”) began to be used on silver coins in association with mint-marks (MDPS,
TRPS, etc.), though never as widely as OB and never at Eastern mints, perhaps because pusula-
tum was Latin and there was no Greek equivalent. We have no written evidence for the applica-
tion to silver of the same refining regulations as we have for the gold. But ingots of both precious
metals were used in payments, and analyses of silver coins (Rauch 1857; Reece 1963; Amandry
et al. 1982, 282-4) show an improvement under Valentinian I from an already remarkable
fineness of ca. 93% to ca. 98%, the improvement affecting both Western mints with mint-marks
including PS and Eastern mints without this (CONS, ANT, etc.). The silver coins of the later
Empire were clearly of as pure metal as the techniques of the day allowed.
More remarkable still, there was a comparable change in the aes coinage, though not one
of quite the same character, since purer copper implied a lowering in value instead of an in-
crease. Scholars in the nineteenth century were accustomed to regarding at least the higher
denominations of fourth-century “bronze” coinage as “silvered bronze” or “cuivre saucé,” that
is, coins of bronze which were silvered before being put into circulation and had a small pro-
portion of silver in their alloy, like the “black billon” of the later Middle Ages, so that even when
the surface silver wore off they could still be tariffed at a higher figure than they would have
been if they had consisted simply of bronze. This view was vigorously denied by Adelson (1954),
who collected such figures for chemical composition as were available and attached particular
importance to Lewis’ assertion that the coating of many Tetrarchic “folles” in the Seltz hoard
was one of copper salts and not silver (Lewis 1937, 76-81). Subsequent analyses by Cope and
others showed that Lewis’ figures were either incorrect or atypical, for the coins of the Tetrarchy
and the Constantinian period did have a small but appreciable silver content, which although
under 5% and varied from time to time must have affected how they were tariffed (Cope 1968,
1972; Barrandon et al. 1977; Bastien 1978; cf. RIC VI.104; VII.79—86). Analyses of coins of the
later fourth century showed that this subsequently disappeared from at least the AE 3 and AE
4 (Reece 1963; Ravetz 1963; cf. RIC VIII.59—66), where from Julian onward the proportion of
silver was too small, 0.5% at the most, to be regarded as anything other than accidental impurity.
The figures in Amandry et al. (1982, 284-9) allow one to nuance the picture. The AE 1 of
Julian and Jovian contain about 2% silver, a figure certainly small but implying an intentional
addition of precious metal to the alloy, but the rare AE 1 of Valentinian I, struck at the very
beginning of his reign, saw the proportion of silver reduced 0.1% or less. The AE 3 and AE 4,
whether of Julian, Jovian, or Valentinian I, all have figures consistently below 1% and often
falling to 0.1%. Nor was any silver added to the alloy later. It is clear that the value of the
“bronze” coinage did not depend on the presence of any precious metal in its alloy.
It is, however, equally clear that it is only by convention that the coins are termed “bronze,”
32 THE MONETARY SYSTEM
TABLE 4
Composition of Theodosian AE 4 from the Lierre and Bermondsey Hoards
Copper (%) Lead (%) Other Metals (%)
1. Trier 69.2 20.2 10.6 (incl. 3.0% tin)
2. Lyon 70.5 19.4 10.1 (incl. 2.7% tin)
3. Arles 54.6 By 8.3 (incl. 0.8% tin)
4. Rome 57.1 35.4 7.5 (incl. 1.6% tin)
5. Rome 60.4 34.5 6.2 (incl. 1.7% tin)
6. Unspecified 62.4 36.8 0.8% tin
7. Unspecified 66.6 | 0.7% tin
8. Unspecified 68.7 29.7 1.6% tin
9. Unspecified 64.5 33.6 1.6% tin, 0.3% silver
at least in the technical sense of bronze being copper alloyed with up to 10% tin. Although some
may have been over 90% copper (Hammer 1908, 139-40), others, at least in the late fourth
century, were of very poor quality metal containing some 30% lead and up to 5% of a mixture
of tin, silver, iron, and other impurities (see Table 4). This was true of four coins of unspecified
identity from the Bermondsey 1946 hoard of ca. 400 analyzed at the British Museum laboratory
(Mattingly 1947) and of five similar coins from the Lierre hoard of about the same date analyzed
at the Brussels mint (Lallemand 1965a, 61-2). The latter analyses showed substantial variations
from mint to mint—the mint-marks of the Bermondsey coins are not recorded and were pre-
sumably illegible—but, despite the closeness of the two Rome coins to each other, these varia-
tions were probably no more than chance. The two sets of figures are not exactly comparable,
for the British Museum analyses were specifically concerned with the tin content and presum-
ably classed “other impurities” under lead, but they are consistent in showing that the coins were
neither billon or bronze on the one hand nor, on the other, pure copper, as they would have
been after the reforms of Anastasius, when such analyses as are available show that the coins
were effectively of pure metal (Hammer 1908, 140; Grierson 1965; Butler and Metcalf 1967).
Anastasius’ reforms thus involved not the replacement of bronze by copper, as has often been
supposed, but that of coins of bad-quality copper by ones of virtually pure metal.
C. GOLD COINAGE
The solidus, or nomisma (tO v6utoua) in Greek, was created by Constantine the Great in
309 and extended throughout the Empire after his defeat of Licinius in 324. It was struck 72 to
the Roman pound or 6 to the ounce, thus weighing in Roman terms 24 siliquae or carats (xe-
odtia), 4.55 g in modern units. It was struck in the fourth and fifth centuries on an enormous
scale, for the Empire suffered from no shortage of gold, so that most of the gold coins cata-
logued here are solidi. Below it, in the period covered by this volume, there were two fractions,
the semissis and the tremissis. Brunetti’s metrological arguments for the existence of further
subdivisions—fractions of the aureus as well as the solidus and including quarters as well as
thirds (Brunetti 1973)—are unconvincing, being based on an overconfidence in the exactness
of weights occasionally recorded and taking no account of types. Above the solidus were a num-
ber of multiples of which the heaviest, hardly ever struck, weighed a pound of gold.
The semis or semissis (i.e., semis + as; TO onptootov in Greek), which nineteenth-century
numismatists tended to call, by analogy with the half of the denarius, a quinarius, also went back
GOLD COINAGE 33
to Constantine. In the fourth and most of the fifth century, it was a ceremonial coin minted only
occasionally for quinquennial distributions (Ulrich-Bansa 1972), and specimens are rare; it was
not till the sixth century that it was struck on a substantial scale and passed into normal use. The
customary reverse type was a seated Victory inscribing the appropriate vota on a shield, but
semisses of fifth-century empresses have a Chi-Rho in a wreath—vota were limited to emper-
ors—and in the second half of the century this type was adopted for their own semisses by
emperors in the West.
The lowest gold fraction for the first three-quarters of the fourth century had been an
incongruous coin of 1% scruples (1.70 g) or nine siliquae, only rarely struck and not a conve-
nient fraction of either the solidus or the aureus of 1/60th of the pound, but presumably having
some traditional function of a ceremonial character. It was introduced by Constantine and
ended in the 380s, when it was replaced by the tremissis. Although the total of known specimens
is quite respectable—Elmer (1935, 287) compiled a list, with weights, of no fewer than 72—not
more than two or three are known for any single issue. The type is virtually identical with that
of the semissis, but since neither coin was in regular use, this presumably did not matter. The
denomination just lasted into the reign of Arcadius but had disappeared before Honorius’ acces-
sion. What contemporaries called it we do not know; Carson (in PCR III) terms it a nine-siliqua
piece.
Its replacement was the tremis or tremissis (tO toiusfootov). The new coin seems initially to
have been also ceremonial, though this is not indicated by either legend or type, for specimens
of the late fourth and early fifth century are rare. Under Theodosius II and Valentinian III it
came into more general use and seems thenceforward to have been minted on a scale compa-
rable with that of the solidus, helping to fill the denominational gap caused by the virtual dis-
appearance of the silver siliqua. It perhaps became popular, at least in the East, as a result of
the generous almsgiving in the 420s and 430s of those models of piety, Empresses Pulcheria and
Eudocia, whose tremisses are much commoner than their solidi and for whom the denomination
was evidently struck on a large scale. Eastern and Western tremisses have basically the same
Victoria Augustorum inscription and initially a standing Victory for type, but her posture and
attributes differ in the two series. The Eastern type, introduced by Theodosius, was that of a
Victory virtually facing but sometimes advancing right or looking left, and holding a wreath and
a globus cruciger. It continued, with only a few brief interruptions (e.g., Theodosius II’s short-
lived “trophy” [361-2] coins in the 420s), until the end of the reign of Justin II in 578, an
extraordinary example of continuity over nearly two centuries. The Eastern type for empresses
was a cross in wreath. The initial Western type, introduced by Magnus Maximus in or soon after
383, was a Victory advancing much more decisively to the left and holding wreath and palm. It
continued through the reigns of Honorius and John down to 425, when under Valentinian III,
and presumably at the instance of Galla Placidia, it was replaced by the cross in wreath, which
became the almost invariable Western type for the remainder of the century.
The date and circumstances of the introduction of the tremissis, which are relevant to the
early coinage in Arcadius’ name, have been studied by Elmer (1935) and Ulrich-Bansa (1968).
The date was certainly before 388, for the denomination was minted by Magnus Maximus at
Trier and subsequently at Milan. Since no tremisses are known of Gratian, it was apparently in
or after 383, and Elmer argued for the year 383 itself, since the weights of three specimens of
Constantinopolitan 1% scripulum coins in the names of Theodosius, Arcadius, and Valentinian
II are respectively 1.35 g, 1.21 g but pierced, and 1.42 g, and the legends on the Victory’s shield
are VOT/V/MVLI/X, implying the year 383/4. The weight of a similar coin at Leningrad (T 41)
34 THE MONETARY SYSTEM
in Arcadius’ name is 1.7 g, that of a normal 1 scripulum. Elmer's view is that the change in
weight took place in 383 and was subsequently followed by a change in type, that to the advanc-
ing Victory with wreath and globus cruciger of the Constantinopolitan tremissis, which made
clear the distinction between the denominations.
A different and much preferable view, making better sense of the circumstances of the
introduction of the new denomination, was put forward by Ulrich-Bansa. He argued that the
tremissis was a creation of Magnus Maximus and dated from the start of his reign (383), since
the busts on his tremisses of Trier closely resemble those of his earliest solidi of the mint. Maxi-
mus subsequently minted the coin at Milan, after his invasion and annexation of Italy in 388, in
his own name and that of his son Victor (RIC IX, 80/18; illustrations in Ulrich-Bansa 1968, 90).
The issue was continued there in 388 by Theodosius, in his own name and those of Valentinian
II and Arcadius, and the denomination was eventually introduced by him at Constantinople in
392 after his return there in December 391. This arrangement has the advantage of explaining
how the use of the same denomination passed from one half of the Empire to the other. An
apparent difficulty, the presence in the Vienna collection of a unique tremissis of Flaccilla (C 7;
RIC 232/76) that seemed to show the denomination being struck in the East prior to 386, the
year of her death, does not really exist, for the coin is a modern forgery. Ulrich-Bansa tried to
get round it by arguing that all Flaccilla’s coins were posthumous, but this far-fetched hypothesis,
which is incompatible with the mint-marks of her coins, is in fact unnecessary.
The multiples of the solidus, which it would be more correct to call fractions of the pound,
are what have been traditionally called medallions. Even as late as the 1940s, it was not generally
realized that they were always related to the aureus or solidus (cf. Toynbee 1944, 40), for
nineteenth-century scholars in reporting their weights had often included those of the mounts
of the many specimens which had been subsequently incorporated into pieces of jewelry (e.g.,
Lenormant 1867 and 1897, 1I.11-12; comprehensive rectification by Bastien 1972). It was also
long believed that such coins were made only for limited ceremonial distribution, largely though
not entirely of a military character, to individuals, and efforts were made to relate their types to
the supposed occasions on which they were used and treat them as essential guides to dating. It
is now recognized that while there was some flexibility in the choice of types, many denomina-
tions tended to have particular ones associated with them. From the late fourth century onward,
a Victory advancing left with wreath and palm was generally used for the aureus (515; also DOC
I, pl. 1.1), an emperor on horseback of the so-called Adventus type for the 14 solidus multiple
(e.g., Morrisson 1970, I, pl. 1v.01), two seated figures of Roma and Constantinopolis for the
double solidus (377), a single seated figure for the 41% solidus multiple (Bellinger 1958, nos. 30—
2), and an emperor in a chariot drawn by six horses for a six-solidus one.
Earlier in the fourth century, the types had been much more varied, and diversity was never
excluded even in the fifth century. Since the high intrinsic value of medallions meant that they
were usually of exceptionally careful design and fine workmanship, they have often formed a
special object of study, the standard collections of material being Gnecchi (1912) and Toynbee
(1944). The largest recorded multiples, of the fourth and sixth centuries, weighed a full pound,
but the heaviest known one of the fifth century is a twelve-solidus (2 0z.) piece of Severus III at
Turin (below, p. 253). The commoner ones, if one can apply such a term to such rare objects,
are pieces of 1%, 2, 3, and 4'% solidi. The so-called aureus, or Fest-awreus as it was termed by
Elmer, struck 60 to the pound and weighing 5.46 g, is metrologically an anomaly in the se-
quence, but it perpetuated a gold denomination created by Diocletian that had preceded the
Constantinian solidus. It continued to be occasionally struck down to the sixth century, presum-
SILVER COINAGE 35
ably through being associated with some distribution of a customary character in much the same
way as English Maundy money has survived the disappearance of the silver penny and groat.
Medallions were often mounted by their owners as jewelry, sometimes in a setting of mounted
coins as pectorals (cf. Dennison 1918; Zadoks-Josephus Jitta 1950, 1953, 1987), and enjoyed a
particular favor among the Germanic peoples (Babelon 1906), so that many have been found
outside the imperial frontier. The major groups, in the period covered by this volume, are the
imitation medallions of the late fourth century found at Szilagy-Sémly6 in Hungary in 1797 and
now in the Vienna collection (Steinbiichel 1826; Hampel 1905, 15-39) and the gold medallions
of Honorius and Galla Placidia found at Velp in the Netherlands in 1715 (below, pp. 294-5).
A number of gold coins of the period have graffiti scratched on them, sometimes a cross or
Christogram, sometimes a letter or combination of letters, sometimes one or more apparently
meaningless strokes. A student of countermarks and coin graffiti, writing nearly half a century
ago, noted that they seemed to be particularly common in the period of the Valentinianic dy-
nasty and Theodosius I; more than 80 of the 109 he had found on gold coins of the fourth to
seventh centuries belonged to these reigns (Holzer 1944). Their meaning is necessarily conjec-
tural. Some are probably no more than casual scratches, despite their being inflicted on coins of
precious metal which bore a “sacred” imperial image. Others were perhaps marks of ownership,
however temporary that ownership might be, or guarantees of authenticity. Others again, Hol-
zer suggested, might have been intended to confer a Christian character on coins displaying
only pagan types. They occur most frequently in the period of transition from paganism to
Christianity, and the material at his disposal, in his own collection (now in the Museum of the
American Numismatic Society) and elsewhere, showed that with the adoption of a cross as the
major coin type in the late sixth and early seventh centuries they practically cease to occur. Since
they may be of interest to scholars, and are not always clear on the illustrations, their presence
on coins here has been noted in the catalogue.
D. SILVER COINAGE
Silver was current in the Empire in two forms, passing by weight in the form of ingots,
including plate and scrap metal, and by tale as coin, though for large payments these would no
doubt revert to weight. The ingot/plate currency has been referred to already (p. 30); here we
are concerned only with the coin. The standard denomination was the one we are accustomed
to call the siliqua, which in the last decades of the fourth century weighed ca. 2 g but which had
fallen to only ca. 1 g, when silver coins were being struck at all, a hundred years later. Multiples
rarely exceed a weight of ca. 13 g, making them pieces of six siliquae, though a few heavier ones
are known. These, together with the “heavy” miliarenses of 5.46 g, are traditionally described
as medallions, while the “light” miliarenses, equivalent to two siliquae, served as currency. Half-
siliquae were initially struck from time to time for ceremonial purposes but from 474 onward
became regular currency in Italy. The weights of the silver coins here, fewer than 80 in number,
are set out in Tables 5 and 6, and although not numerous enough to serve as a basis for calcu-
lating theoretical weights, they in fact conform to the pattern that can be deduced from those
recorded by Tolstoi, PCR, the catalogue of the Hunterian collection, and other sources. The
only coin whose name is actually attested in the texts is the miliarense, for “siliqua” meant nor-
mally a money of account.
The essential elements in the coinage are as follows:
Heavy medallions. These are unrepresented here, but exist for a number of rulers, a notable
36 THE MONETARY SYSTEM
group being the huge multiples of Priscus Attalus (C 5—6; Gnecchi 1912, pl. 37.6; PCR III,
1522) weighing ca. 80 g, a quarter of a Roman pound. There were no fewer than eight pieces
of six siliquae, struck in the names of four emperors and from as many mints, in the San Genesio
(Pavia) hoard of 383/4 (Ulrich-Bansa 1954). These are remarkably uniform in weight, the light-
est 13.225 g and the heaviest 13.385 g, with an average of 13.383 g, implying at that time a
siliqua of 2.22 g, only just short of 1/144th of a pound (2.274 g).
Heavy and light miliarenses, 1/60th lb. (5.46 g) and 1/72nd lb. (4.55 g) respectively and thus
corresponding in weight to the gold aureus and solidus. Like their gold equivalents, the heavy
coins were struck only rarely and for ceremonial purposes and the light ones quite commonly;
there were 90 in the San Genesio hoard just referred to. In the second half of the fourth century,
the two denominations were systematically differentiated in type as well as in weight. The heavy
coin had on the obverse a profile bust to the right but with the head turned to the left, and on
the reverse a standing figure of the emperor, looking left and nimbate, raising his right hand in
a gesture of salutation and holding a globe in his left (e.g., 306). The light miliarense had on
the obverse a profile bust facing right and on the reverse a standing figure of the emperor, again
looking left but this time not nimbate, holding a labarum with his right hand and resting his left
hand on a shield (e.g., 270).
TABLE 5
Silver Miliarenses in the Collections
Heavy Miliarense Type Light Miliarense Type
Obv. Bust w. head 1. Obv. Bust w. head r.
Rev. Emp. w. r. hand raised Rev. Emp. w. spear (or labarum)
holding globe and shield
Arcadius (163) 4.38 g Arcadius (270) 3.92 g
Honorius (782) 4.30 g
Theodosius II (306) 4.17 g Theodosius II (348) 4.30 g
Marcian (505) 4.28 g
Leo I (549) 4.36 g Leo I (548) 5.21 g
Zeno (669) 4.50 g
In the fifth century this typological distinction between the two denominations vanished, so
that coins of heavy miliarense type often weigh no more than ca. 4.30 g and ones of light mili-
arense type sometimes weigh over 5 g (see Table 5). The explanation may partly be the reduction
in the weight of the siliqua, which made light coins rather more than the double siliquae they
had previously been. But this does not cover the fact of heavy coins being sometimes of light
miliarense type, and it seems more likely that, since both denominations were now minted only
exceptionally, it was a matter of little consequence to the mint whether heavy or light flans were
used for either denomination, though naturally the lighter coins, which were still theoretically
being struck for ordinary circulation, would predominate. This leaves the cataloguer in a pre-
dicament over how to identify the coins, whether by their types or by their weights. Since users,
not regarding the coins as actual currency, were presumably more interested in the weights, this
has been taken as the criterion here, a note being made in each case whether the coin is struck
on a normal flan or not.
SILVER COINAGE 37
Siliqua (1/144th lb., 2.27 g). This coin is frequently referred to by Pearce as weighing “c. 1.9
g” in the late fourth century, but the specimens in the San Genesio hoard show that in the 370s
and early 380s it conformed quite closely to what one would expect of a coin struck 144 to the
pound, with most specimens weighing 2.1 g and 2.3 g and a few rising to 2.36 g. Pearce (in RIC
IX.xxvii) argued that soon after Theodosius I’s death there was a formal reduction to ca. 1.13
g, and other scholars have postulated a weight standard of 1.5 g/1.6 g after 392 (Ulrich-Bansa
1949, 183-6; King 1981, 53, 55). Pearce’s figure was influenced by his interpretation of CTh
XIII.2.1 (above, p. 28) and is not borne out by the actual weights of the coins (see Table 6), but
it is true that in the early fifth century these are well below the San Genesio average and do not
often exceed or even reach 1.7 g. But a formal standard of 1.5 g/1.6 g is difficult to reconcile
with the continued if sporadic occurrence of coins of the old figure. The British Museum coins
of Constantine III, for example, which can be more closely dated than siliquae of Honorius,
include one of Lyon of 2.13 g and a pierced one of Trier of 1.88 g. It is possible that the
theoretical weight was reduced, but casual mint practice in regard to a denomination now re-
garded as unimportant and struck on a much smaller scale may just as well be the explanation.
A feature of many silver siliquae of the last two decades of the fourth century is their sys-
tematic clipping to some lower standard or standards. It seems to have been limited to Britain,
and the specimens here, three of Arcadius (204—6) and four of Honorius (717-18, 720-1), were
acquired in London and no doubt come from British hoards. The practice mainly affects coins
of the 380s and 390s and must have begun some years after 393, since some hoards containing
early coins of Honorius seem to have been free of it. The clipping is usually carefully done, the
whole circumference of the coin being chiseled or sheared away so that not enough often re-
mains to permit the certain identification of ruler or mint. Such clipped coins first occurred in
quantity in the Coleraine hoard of 1854 (Porter and Carruthers 1855; Mattingly et al. 1937),
and there were a few in the hoard subsequently christened Icklingham I (Hill 1908), but no
special note of it was taken until a series of hoards with clipped siliquae were published in quick
succession half a century ago: Terling (O’Neil 1933b), Sproxton (O’Neil 1934), South Ferriby
(O’Neil 1935), Shapwick II (Pearce 1938b), Colerne (Pearce and Oman 1942), Tuddenham (Mat-
tingly and Pearce 1946), Edington (Hildyard 1948). Its significance was discussed in the context
of these hoards by O’Neil, Mattingly, and Pearce (1933a), and the subject has been more recently
taken up by King (1981, 1988; see also the descriptions of the Deepdale/Barton-upon-Humber
1979/81 and Freckenham 1980 hoards (Burnett and Whitwell 1981, 1984; Bland 1984). The
general feeling was that it was a consequence of the import of silver coin from continental mints
having ceased in the first decade of the fifth century, with a resulting increase in the “value” of
the coins already in the country. It had apparently ended before siliquae of Constantine III
began to arrive in 407, for although specimens of his coins have occurred in a few hoards, none
of them have been clipped.
Such an explanation does not make much sense. The normal consequence of a rarefaction
of precious metal is simply for prices to rise, and, if clipping does occur, as it sometimes did, it
is to match a new weight standard for coins newly produced or, in this case, imported. In this
case the hoards include clipped and unclipped coins in circulation together, with no attempt to
reduce the weight of all coins available for clipping. O’Neil suggested that the phenomenon
might have been to some extent localized, perhaps with its origin at York, for clipped coins do
not occur in the quite numerous hoards from Somerset. This seems to dispose of the explana-
tion that would most naturally occur to one, a systematic attempt to match the reduced weight
of the continental siliqua in the first decade of the century. The most recent discussion of the
38 THE MONETARY SYSTEM
TABLE 6
Weights of Silver Coins in the Collections
Mint abbreviations: AQ = Aquileia; AR = Arles; CP = Constantinople; LD = Lyon;
MD = Milan; RM = Rome; RV = Ravenna; TH = Thessalonica; TR = Trier. The names of
Western rulers are indented.
Clipped and badly damaged coins are omitted. Slightly damaged or worn ones are marked
with an asterisk.
Weights (in grams)
Half-
Siliquae siliquae
4.38 2.06, 2.01, 1.98, 1.98, 1.85,
1.49
1.59
L005, 1.22, 1.21
1.5]
1.78, 1.74, 1.58, 1.40*, 1.39*
Arcadius
1.98, 1.92
1.64, 1.42*
1.48* (plugged), 0.67
55, 2.24
1.54, 1.50, 1.46, 1.31
1.26, 1.16
Honorius
Constantine III
Jovinus
1.08
4.30, 4.17 2.14, 1.77, 1.61, 1.58, 1.51,
1.49, 1.49, 1.46, 1.43, 1.37,
By LU) Bike hice eas
Priscus Attalus
Theodosius II
1.09, 0.86
Pulcheria 1.69, 1.19
Eudocia 1.52, 1.49
Galla Placidia 1.89
0.98
Valentinian III 1.01, 0.71*
Marcian 1.59, 1.50, 1.50
4.28
Leo I 5.21, 4.36 1.06, 0.98
Zeno 1.96, 0.92*
4.50
Basiliscus
Julius Nepos
BRONZE COINAGE 39
matter, in the very careful description of the so-called Fleetwood hoard in the Harris Museum
at Preston (King 1981, 52—5; the hoard was first described in Robertson 1948), complicates the
problem by showing that slightly different standards were involved, coins of Arcadius being
clipped to a weight of 0.8 g, while those of Valentinian I through Theodosius often stopped at
ca. 1.2 g, though the overlap between reigns makes the distinction not altogether clear-cut. A
possibility is that the cut coins might have been intended as half-siliquae, produced in 406/7
when three soldiers in succession tried to make themselves emperors in Britain. Such pretenders
would have needed silver for distribution to both their troops and ordinary citizens, who would
be expected to greet them with applause when they appeared in public. The soldiers, whose
expectations were determined by custom, would have received ingots or full-weight coins, but
members of the ordinary public would probably expect only half-siliquae.
Soon after the mid-fifth century, however, there was clearly a weight reduction in the East
to ca. 1 g, apparently to half the traditional figure, and so with 288 coins of theoretical weight
1.13 g minted to the pound. Since there is no change in type, this being usually a three-line
inscription in a wreath, such coins are better thought of as siliquae than as half-siliquae. One
would expect this weight reduction to have affected the West, but coins of over 2 g and of a
traditional siliqua type were still being struck quite late in Italy. A Ravennate one of Julius Nepos
of seated Roma type in this collection (941) weights 2.07 g, Cohen records another specimen of
the same type weighing 2.22 g (C 13), and one in the British Museum (PCR III.1566) weighs
1.97 g. This confirms the general view that the Italian coins of the 470s and 480s having as types
a standing Tyche or an eagle, and usually weighing just under a gram (cf. 672, 682—4, and 942,
of 0.87 g, 0.92 g, 1.03 g, 0.81 g, and 0.86 g respectively) were half-siliquae and not full siliquae.
Half-siliquae (1/288th lb. = 1.13 g). This lowest denomination of silver came into existence
in the last two decades of the fourth century, and its history falls into two periods, from the late
fourth to the mid-fifth century and from the 470s onward. The coins of the first period have
just been alluded to. The material on the first period was collected by Pearce (1943; cf. RIC
IX.xxviil), and much information on its fifth-century history, with illustrations of 21 specimens
of Honorius, John, and Valentinian III, will be found in Morrisson and Schwartz (1982, 172-3,
178-9).
The half-siliqua throughout was essentially a Western coin, and the reverse type in the first
period, where emperors are concerned, is consistently a Victory advancing left holding a wreath
and palm, with VICTORIA AVCC legend. Half-siliquae of empresses have a Chi-Rho in a
wreath. The weight is normally ca. 1 g, which is what one would expect for the half of a theo-
retically full-weight siliqua but a good deal more than half the weight of the reduced siliqua of
the day. The explanation is presumably that since the coin was so rarely struck, having only a
marginal existence, the mint could afford to strike it at its full theoretical weight. The coins were
probably intended for throwing to the crowds on such festive occasions as imperial accessions,
anniversaries, and consular processions. The only specimens here, apart from a forgery of Con-
stantius III (816), are of Galla Placidia (833) and Valentinian III (847-8). The half-siliqua of
Honorius was imitated on an extensive scale by the Vandals (Morrisson and Schwartz 1982).
E. BRONZE COINAGE
The denominational pattern of the bronze coinage of the later Empire lacked the simplicity
of that of the Principate, though there is a certain parallelism between the four denominations
sestertius—dupondius—as—semis (or quadrans) and what are conventionally described as AE l—
AE 2—AE 3-—AE 4. Each denomination is lighter, only about half the figures of the Principate,
40 THE MONETARY SYSTEM
and their value relationships to the gold and silver coins are uncertain and certainly varied a
good deal. Even the names, as already explained, are uncertain. Cohen described them as GB,
MB, PB, and PBQ (i.e., “Grand,” “Moyen,” and “Petit bronze” and “Petit bronze quinaire”), while
Elmer, who in the 1930s made great advances in our understanding of the system, believed that
the MB and PB could be identified with the maiorina and centenionalis of contemporary texts
and made of the PBQ a quarter-maiorina (Elmer 1956; first edition, 1933). Pearce, who with
Mickwitz was then the other major scholar in the field, was skeptical of these identifications and
preferred the Cohen system but with the traditional English notation of AE 1—4, in descending
order of size. One thus has:
GB = AE1 = Follis (recte nummus)
MB = AE 2 = Maiorina
PB = AE3 = Centenionalis
PBQ = AE 4 = Half-centenionalis or quarter-maiorina.
Of more recent writers, Lallemand has generally preferred to use the AE 2/AE 3/AE 4 system,
while accepting in general the correctness of Elmer’s nomenclature; Hahn follows the latter,
while Delmaire follows LRBC in keeping to the numerical system. It is this that has been used
here.
The denominations underwent a number of type changes over the two decades 390-410
before settling down to a simple coinage having normally only a single denomination weighing
ca. 1 g. Prior to the 1950s virtually no systematic work was done on their metrology, and this
remains true of the higher denominations of the period from Valentinian I’s accession to the
end of the fourth century. Hoards published prior to the 1950s rarely gave the weights of the
coins, basically because until the coming of electric balances the process of weighing coins was
extremely slow and laborious. Scholars were consequently reluctant to spend their time on an
operation which, given the condition of the coins, seemed of doubtful value. Things have now
gone to the other extreme. Figures, once ascertained and in print, acquire an existence of their
own, and scholars attempt to calculate theoretical weights when they have nothing better to go
on than sets of figures for coins that are always worn and in varying degrees cleaned, and which
have lost some uncertain proportion of their weights in circulation. If hoards are biased in one
way, museum material is biased in the other. Museum curators will have picked out by prefer-
ence the best-preserved specimens, necessary if mint-marks are to be legible and the coins sat-
isfactorily classified in their trays, and these in turn will be selected out of much larger samples
made by dealers, the remaining coins having been set aside as unsalable and thrown away or
melted. (This can occur at the museum stage: the Berlin accession register for 1918 contains a
note in Regling’s hand on the relegation of illegible coins from the Magnesia excavations to the
category of duplicates “und den zum Einschmelzen bestimmten Mzn. gelegt”). In any case, such
work as has been done has been virtually confined to the smallest denomination, and has not
been extended to the higher denominations of the late fourth century. For these there are only
some estimates by Elmer in his systematic survey of Roman coinage (Elmer 1956, 27), by Alféldi
on the basis of material found in Pannonia (Alféldi 1924—6, I.9-13), and by Pearce in RIC
TX.xxx—xxxil.
The weights of the bronze coins in the Dumbarton Oaks and Whittemore collections of the
late fourth and the fifth centuries are set out in the four sections of Table 7. Only those of the
higher denominations of the late fourth century are of serious independent value, since so little
published material is available and the coins are almost all in good condition. For the lower
BRONZE COINAGE 4]
denominations in the same period, the tables can do no more than confirm conclusions based
on the much more abundant and carefully studied material in the Helchteren and Lierre hoards
(Lallemand 1960, 1965a) and the Boulogne hoard (Delmaire 1983), all of them Western, and
hoards from Meydum (Maclsaac 1972), from some uncertain Egyptian sites (Lallemand 1973),
and from a Turkish hoard that found its way to Belgium (Doyen 1985, 143-7). For the later
period in the East, we have the evidence of three hoards studied by Adelson and Kustas in the
early 1960s. The material can be divided into three periods or phases. In the first (383-95), the
chief denominations are AE 2 and AE 4, with only a little AE 3. In the second (395-408),
the AE 2 has disappeared, but both AE 3 and AE 4 are still being struck on a substantial scale.
In the third (408-91, or more precisely 408—98, the date of Anastasius’ reform of the bronze
coinage), virtually the only denomination in the East is the AE 4; the West had initially a mixture
of AE 3 and AE 4 and subsequently little bronze coinage at all. There is in any case a weight
divergence between East and West, though there is so little Western material that the pattern is
far from clear.
(a) Phase 1, 383—95
The average weights of the coins show an identical pattern for the years 383—6 and 393-5,
with an AE 2 weighing ca. 5.15 g, an AE 3 of 2.58 g, and an AE 4 of 1.23 g, that is, weights
implying a value relationship between the coins of 4:2:1. The average weight of the “Emperor-
on-horseback” type for Arcadius, it is true, is only 1.96 g, but this is a matter of chance when
the total of specimens is so small; the average is 2.25 for Honorius. The figures for the AE 2
and AE 4 are appreciably above the averages of 4.73 g and 1.15 g given by Alféldi (1924-6,
1.12), but his coins are from excavation material and are fewer in number. Elmer (1956, 27) put
the AE 2 of the period at 5.45 g, with AE 3 of 2.73 g and AE 4 of 1.37 g, respectively 1/60th, 1/
120th, and 1/240th of the Roman pound.
During the past few decades, much relevant hoard material has been subjected to detailed
metrological study. For AE 2 the best comparable figure is that of the Reparatio Reipub coins
(mainly Magnus Maximus) of the decade 378—87 in the Hemptinne hoard from near Namur
(Belgium), where the average (both mean and median) of 801 specimens worked out at 4.89 g,
but with individual coins varying between 2.93 g and 7.45 g (Lallemand 1968c, 33-6). For AE
4 the most important evidence is that of the Lierre hoard of ca. 400, where Lallemand argued
(1965a, 63-7) for a figure of either 1.23 g (264 to the lb.) or 1.26 g (258 to the lb.), more probably
the latter. The second figure, however, would imply the unlikely fraction of 1/64 of a pound
for the AE 2. Subsequently, after an analysis of the weights of the Salus Reipublicae AE 4 in a
hoard of Egyptian origin, she modified her estimate of this upward to 1.36 g, or 1/240th of a
pound on the basis of Thirion’s slightly lighter pound of 326.337 g (Lallemand 1973, 165-7).
Delmaire, on the strength of the material in the Boulogne hoard, argued on the other hand for
the much lower weight of 1.13 g, that of the Roman scruple, “ce quia l’avantage de correspondre
exactement a une unité de poids du systeéme romain” (Delmaire 1983, 168-72). The weights of
the coins here, however, show that 1.13 g for the AE 4 is certainly too low, especially when those
of the AE 2 and AE 3 are taken into account. Equally 1.36 g (or 1.37 g) is hard to square with
either the 4.89 g of Hemptinne or the 5.15 g of the material here for AE 2; Lallemand herself
noted that the condition of the Hemptinne coins was too good to allow so large a difference
between it and Elmer's 5.45 g. The most likely figure for the AE 4 seems in fact to be 1.24 g,
with 2.48 g for the AE 3 and 4.96 g for the AE 2, or 264, 132, and 66 to the pound. The higher
42 THE MONETARY SYSTEM
TABLE 7
Weights of Bronze Coins in the Collections
Figures in italic are the averages of the relevant series. Weights marked with an asterisk are
those of defective specimens not included in the averages.
(a) Phase 1, 383—95
The coins are all of Arcadius, save in the period 393-5.
Type Weights (in grams) No. to lb.
383-6
Gloria Romanorum Emp. | AE 2 | 4.63*, 6.32, 5.79, 3.49, 5.19, 4.74,
and captive 4.92, 5.31, 5.15, 4.80, 5.19, 5.78,
5.40, 4.49, 5.19, 4.68, 4.49, 5.42, 66 4.96
4.81, 3.49, 6.34, 5.83, 5.73, 4.74,
5.92, 5.35, 5.49, 5.53, 5.65 5.15
Gloria Romanorum Emp. | AE 3 | 2.35, 2.92, 2.47 2.58 132 2.48
dragging captive
Vot V in wreath AE 4 |} 1.17, 0.89, 1.47, 1.23, 1.23, 1.29,
0.99, 1.39, 1.10, 1.02, 0.49*, 1.27,
1.28, 1.56, 1.00, 1.49 F239
387-92
Virtus exercitt Emp. AE 2 | 2.49, 4.15, 4.67, 2.49, 5.31, 4.73,
spurning captive 3.49, 3.69, 4.46, 5.59, 4.19, 5.32,
4.45, 3.49, 3.74, 4.64, 5.91, 5.79,
5.77 4.43
Vot X Mult XX in wreath | AE 4 | 1.47, 1.59, 1.40, 1.25, 1.42, 1.32,
1.12, 1.49, 1.17 1.36
393-5
Gloria Romanorum Emp. | AE 2 | 4.90, 6.17, 5.49, 6.33, 4.82, 4.49,
w. labarum and globe 4.44, 5.49, 5.33, 5.31, 4.49*, 5.22, 66 4.96
(Arcadius) 3.49, 5.52, 5.26, 5.49 5.14 ;
(Honorius) 4.62, 3.84, 4.64, 5.33, 4.69, 6.68 5.00
Gloria Romanorum Emp. | AE 3 | 1.57, 1.97, 1.73, 2.49, 2.18, 1.40,
on horseback 2.49, 1.84 1.96 198 9.73
(Arcadius)
(Honorius) 2.11, 2.03, 1.81, 2.93, 2.35 2.25
Salus Reipublicae Victory | AE 4 | 0.87, 0.49, 0.49, 0.95, 1.10, 1.32,
dragging captive 1.49, 0.49, 0.93, 1.31, 1.04, 0.92,
(Arcadius) (from 387) 0.49, 1.44, 1.49, 1.27, 1.07, 1.49,
1.65, 1.66, 1.16, 1.23, 1.49, 1.57,
1.47, 1.49, 1.49, 1.47, 1.49, 1.23, 240 1.37
0.88, 1.28, 1.18, 1.49, 1.15, 1.52,
1.42, 1.29, 1.03, 0.92, 1.52, 0.99,
1.20, 1.51, 1.49, 1.49, 0.49, 1.49,
0.49, 1.38, 1.38, 1.26, 0.96, 0.92 1.18
(Honorius) 0.70, 1.16, 0.93 0.93
BRONZE COINAGE 43
average of the AE 2 coins here is due to their being collectors’ specimens picked for quality and
incidentally of higher weight.
The weights for the years 387—92 are more puzzling. The coins have the same general
appearance as those that preceded and followed them, and seem to have circulated interchange-
ably with these in hoards, but the average weight of the AE 2 (4.43 g) is appreciably under and
that of the AE 4 exceeds those of the averages of these denominations for the other periods.
That no change had really taken place in the AE 4 is in fact apparent from Lallemand’s Egyptian
hoard, where the Vot X Mult XX type is well represented and the averages (22 coins of Valentinian
II, average weight 1.25 g; 31 of Theodosius I, average 1.25 g; 17 of Arcadius, average 1.18 g)
are the same as for those of the Salus Retpublicae coins. The AE 2 presents a greater problem,
for there seems to be no published body of material with which it can be usefully comparec.
The weights are too few, and too widely scattered between an absurdly low 2.49 g (2 specimens)
and a very high 5.91 g, to allow the construction of a frequency table, and although the average
(b) Phase 2, 395-408
‘Type Weights (in grams)
Virtus exerciti Emp. Wid lj, Rode, RE aie OAs Aad Os
crowned by Victory 2.49, 2.82, 2.43, 2.49, 2.23, 2.49,
(Arcadius) 2.06, 2.49, 2.30, 2.49, 2.74, 2.41 2. 2.27
(Honorius) 1.66, 2.88, 2.29, 2.34, 1.98, 2.24,
2.92, 2.51
Concordia Augg Cpolis 2.70, 2.71, 2.49, 1.68, 2.67, 1.85,
seated 2.49, 2.10, 2.10, 2.82, 2.74
(Arcadius) 2.27
(Honorius) 2.44, 2.02,
(Theodosius) 2.32*, 2.49, 2.68, 1.49*
Gloria Romanorum 1.05, 2.09, 1.70, 1.64, 1.99, 1.49,
3 emps. standing 1.49
(Arcadius) 1.52
(Honorius) 1.33, 1.59, 1.21, 1.89
(Theodosius) 1.77, 1.49, 1.43, 1.29*, 2.60
Gloria Romanorum 1.53, 1.97, 2.19, 2.55
Empress seated
(Eudoxia)
227
Salus Reipublicae 2.40, 3.33, 2.49, 2.55, 2.32, 2.06,
Victory writing on 2.46, 2.49, 2.54, 2.33, 2.15, 2.49,
shield (Eudoxia) 1.49, 2.74, 2.46, 2.51
Concordia Auccc Cross 0.84, 0.52, 0.92, 0.94 0.76
(Arcadius)
Urbs Roma Felix Roma
standing
(Honorius) 1.92*, 2.28, 1.89*
2.97 |
(Arcadius) 2.59
44 THE MONETARY SYSTEM
is certainly unduly depressed by the presence of the two coins weighing 2.49 g, there are no
fewer than four others weighing less than 4 g, making a total of six such coins out of the 19 AE
4 of this class, low weights such as these occurring very rarely elsewhere. The solution is prob-
ably that there was no formal weight change but less care was taken to avoid the use of blanks
that were badly underweight for the junior emperor, once the interest of novelty had worn off.
(b) Phase 2, 395-408
The death of Theodosius was followed by an abrupt cessation of the AE 2 denomination,
clearly in this context the pecunia maiorina banned in a Western constitution of 12 April 395 and
no doubt in the Eastern equivalent of this, which has not survived (see below, pp. 123-4). This
is the most obvious change, for it was the one that was to be permanent. But it was accompanied
by two others less obvious, reductions in the weights of both the AE 3 and AE 4 and apparently
a temporary change in the relationship between them, the AE 4 becoming for a few years a third
instead of a half the AE 3 as it had been before.
The change in the weight of the AE 4 was the main theme of Maclsaac’s commentary on
the Meydum hoard, which contained 95 of the new coins. He reckoned their weight as 0.76 g, a
little under the average of the four specimens here (0.81 g), but likely to be more reliable as
based on many more specimens. His figure would be the equivalent of 432 to the pound, thus
fitting in well with the duodecimal system (12 x 12 x 3). Equally clearly, though not concerning
Maclsaac since the coins were not represented in Meydum, was the reduction in the weight of
the AE 3 to ca. 2.4 g, or perhaps, on the Meydum analogy, to a little less, the most likely figure
being 2.27 g or 144 to the pound. The change is in any case proportionately different to that in
the AE 4, and seems to imply that the AE 4 was now one-third of this coin in value. The old
ratio was restored in 402 with the introduction of the “Three-standing-emperors” type, for the
average weight of the 14 specimens here is 1.65 g, that is, double that of the AE 4 of the period.
The weights of both the AE 3 and the AE 4 were now substantially lower than they had been
in the 380s and 390s. The Western AE 3 Urbs Roma Felix series, however, seems to have retained
the 2.27 g standard of the Eastern AE 3 of the years 395—402, ignoring the Eastern reduction
in 402.
(c) Phase 3, 408-91
The third phase is that of the coin which numismatists are accustomed to call the nummus,
but initially there was an AE 3 as well and there were isolated cases in the East of the striking of
something corresponding in size and appearance to the old AE 2, and, in the West, near the
end of the period, of the striking of a follis bearing the mark of value XL. There was also some
divergence in weights between East and West.
Theodosius II’s AE 3, with two emperors, carried on unchanged the weight (ca. 1.6 g) of its
predecessor with three emperors, and the same weight was adopted in the 420s for Eudocia’s
AE 3 (475: 1.67 g). These coinages, however, mark the end of this denomination in the East.
For the AE 4, however, Theodosius’ coins reverted to a weight certainly in excess of 1 g and well
above the 0.76 g of the years after 395. From Theodosius II’s adoption of a “cross-in-wreath”
reverse type through to the reign of Leo I, the weights are clearly in the 1.15 g/1.20 g range.
This is lighter than the AE 4 of the 380s, but fits in with those derived by Adelson and Kustas
in the 1960s from their study of two huge hoards of the late fifth century, one bought at Volo in
Thessaly (Adelson and Kustas 1962, 17-30) and the other from an unknown site in Greece
BRONZE COINAGE 45
(c) Phase 3, 408—91 (East)
The rare AE 2 struck in this period are omitted, but are discussed in the text.
Estimates
THEODOSIUS II
Gloria Romanorum 2.27, 1.06, 1.48, 1.71 1.63
2 emps.
(Honorius) 2.17, 1.50 1.84
Cross in wreath 0.85*, 1.49, 1.18, 1.06, 1.20, 1.27,
1.10, 0.99, 1.49, 0.92, 1.11, 0.83*,
0.48*
(Valentinian IIT) 0.95
Victoria Ag Emp. 1.06
standing
VT/XXX/V in wreath 1.10, 1.35, 1.16
Monogram 1.33, 1.12
EUDOCIA
Concordia Auc 1.67
Empress seated
MARCIAN
Monogram 1.23, 1.01, 0.60, 1.53, 1.09, 1.32,
1.29, 0.93, 1.11, 0.50, 1.49, 0.88,
1.21, 1.19, 1.42, 0.97, 1.19, 1.38
LEO I
Monogram 1.36, 1.29, 0.85, 1.45, 1.12, 1.19,
1.09, 1.50, 0.74 1.18
Standing emp. and cap- 1.05, 0.96 1.01
tive
Empress standing 0.96, 1.13, 1.46, 1.06, 1.00 1.12
Lion 1.25, 1.27, 1.04, 1.12, 1.49, 0.58,
1.43, 1.76, 0.90 1.20
ZENO
Monogram 1.05, 0.86, 1.18, 0.70, 0.85, 0.63 0.88
Zeno Emp. standing 0.99
(Adelson and Kustas 1960, 153-5); there was also relevant material in a sixth-century hoard
from the Peloponnese (Adelson and Kustas 1964). Their statistical analysis of the several thou-
sand coins in the two fifth-century hoards led them to postulate a weight for the nummus of
between 1.1 g and 1.2 g, the probable figure being 1.14 g, the weight of the Roman scruple, so
that the coins would have been struck 288 to the pound or 24 to the ounce. They believed that
this figure had been unchanged since the time of Valentinian II, a view that MacIsaac showed
to be incorrect, but the figures in Table 7c show that the weight of the coin seems to have been
effectively unchanged since the reign of Theodosius II. They also argued for a further reduc-
tion to 0.94 g for the nummi of Basiliscus and a further reduction to 0.84 g for those of the
46 THE MONETARY SYSTEM
(d) Phase 3, 408—91 (West)
The Roman 40-nummus piece of Zeno is omitted, but is discussed in the text.
Estimates
Type Weights (in grams) Wt.
HONORIUS
Victoria Augg Victory 1.37, 1.44 . 1.52
running I.
Gloria Romanorum Emp. 2.58, 2.21 ; 2.27
and 2 captives
JOHN
Salus Reipublicae 1.50, 1.18 1.52
Victory dragging captive
VALENTINIAN III
Vot. publ. Camp gate 1.23 0.91
| Vot. XX in wreath 0.83
| MAJORIAN
| Victoria Auggg 1.47*, 2.61 ; Pr Ht |
Victory l.
SEVERUS III
Monogram of Ricimer 0.95 0.91
ANTHEMIUS
Monogram 1.53, 1.38 1.52
second reign of Zeno. The first of these figures may be doubted, as there is too little material,
but a reduction to ca. 0.9 g in Zeno’s reign, perhaps 0.91 g (360 to the lb.), is borne out by the
figures in Table 7c.
The weight pattern in the West was different from that in the East, but the lack of published
material, and in particular of hoards, leaves the details much less clear. Minting in any case took
place on a much less substantial scale. What seems to have happened is that the Western mints—
normally only Rome—continued the weight standards established in 402/8, with an AE 3 of ca.
2.4 g or a little over and an AE 4 of half this figure. This at least is what is suggested by the
figures in Table 7d. The AE 4 of the middle years of the century seem to have become lighter.
The weights of the coins of Valentinian III in the Minturno and El-Djem hoards were unfortu-
nately not recorded by Newell or Kent, no doubt because of their bad condition. The five intact
pieces in the Ordona hoard weighed an average of 0.97 g (Lallemand 1967a, 29). Lacam has
recorded the weights of ten specimens of the AE 4 with the monogram of Ricimer, and apart
from one specimen with a large, irregularly shaped flan which is clearly abnormal and weighs
2.17 g, they average 0.95 g, the weight of the coin here (900). The eight in the Ordona hoard
averaged 0.98 g. This points to the adoption of the Eastern standard, but if so, it can have been
only temporary, for the coins of Anthemius are back to a weight of ca. 1.5 g, certainly heavier
than any struck in the East. Majorian’s AE 3, on the other hand, revived the ca. 2.6 g standard
BRONZE COINAGE 47
of Honorius. There is at present not enough published evidence to allow any clear picture to
emerge. The fact that the only Italian AE in the hoard of 475/80 from Ordona, south of Foggia
in Apulia, were the eight of Ricimer just referred to suggests that his coins were the only ones
struck on any substantial scale in the decades after 455. This was also the conclusion of Lalle-
mand (1967a, 24), who points out that there were a total of eight in the hoards from Volo and
Dalmatia and that at Yale, and that apart from four AE 3 of Majorian from Corinth there were
no other post-455 Italian AE in recorded Balkan hoards at all.
There remain the exceptional AE coinages of this period. Coins of the old AE 2 module
and weighing about 5 g and 6 g were struck by three rulers, Theodosius II (435: 5.30 g), Leo I
in his own name (560-1: 5.82 g, 3.75 g) and that of Verina (598: 5.94 g), and Zeno (604: 5.39
g). All are of extreme rarity, and on the analogy of gold and silver multiples one would expect
them to be ceremonial coins intended for special occasions on which the distribution of bronze
pieces of this denomination had become customary sometime in the past. On the other hand,
all coins of Leo, Verina, and Zeno whose provenances are known were found at Cherson, which
points to them having been produced to satisfy some local need. In any case, since the AE 4 was
now a lighter coin than it had been in the late fourth century, the relationship of the AE 2 to the
AE 4 can no longer have been four to one, as it had been then.
The other abnormal AE of the period is the Roman 40-nummus piece of Zeno, which unlike
the Eastern AE 2 does bear a mark of value. The specimen in the collection here (689) weighs
16.30 g, a normal figure for such coins—the average weight of the five in the British Museum
is 16.4 g. On strict proportionality, this would imply a notional nummus of 0.41 and leave the
Eastern AE 4 of that period a unit of 2/2 nummi. Some scholars believe that this was in fact the
value of the coins, and consequently term them minim: rather than nummi. But the difference
in appearance between the AE 4 of the early decades of the fifth century and the ill-struck
“nummi” of its second half is very striking, and seems to justify our treating them as a distinct
denomination much inferior in value to their predecessors.
3
MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
A. ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL
No contemporary account of the organization of minting in the fourth and fifth centuries
has survived, but a certain amount of information can be gleaned from the Notitia Dignitatum
(Seeck 1876; cf. Clemente 1968) and from a constitution of Theodosius I of 384 (CTh VI.30.7,
imperfect; CJ XI1.23.7). The Notitia Dignitatum is an irregularly updated guide to the imperial
civil service that goes back to the late fourth century and is known to us through medieval copies
of a luxury edition perhaps prepared for Stilicho in anticipation of his projected taking over of
the regency of the Eastern Empire after the death of Arcadius in 408 (Seibt 1982, developing
Demougeot 1975, 1133-4). Its listing of the central offices of the count of the sacred largesses is
similar for East and West (Seeck 1876, 35-6, 148—53), but the Western section, which gives more
details than the Eastern one on their internal organization, includes also a list of procuratores
monetarum, that is, of officials in charge of local mints (Seeck 1876, 150), while for the East these
officials are simply referred to as a class (Seeck 1876, 36). The constitution gives the number and
rank of the employees of the central offices, but has nothing to say on local mints. The coinage
itself, once its detailed chronology down to 395 had been worked out in successive volumes of
RIC, proves extremely informative on the extent and nature of such changes as occurred. A
seminal article by Kent (1956b) demonstrated that the minting of gold from 366/7 onward was
quite differently organized from that of bronze, and to some extent from that of silver, and a
subsequent extensive analysis of the gold and silver coins before and after the change (Amandry
et al. 1982) showed how effective it was in improving their quality. A series of studies by Hendy
(1970, 1972a, 1972b), consolidated in his subsequent survey of the monetary economy of the
Empire (Hendy 1985, 371-98, 448-92), now forms the most useful introduction to the subject,
though Jones (1964, I1.427—45, and notes in III.104—10) remains of value, and the introductions
to the fourth-century volumes of RIC have to be consulted on points of detail.
The Diocletianic reform of the coinage in the 290s had set up a pattern of local minting
that, as Mommsen long ago argued, conformed roughly if not precisely to the pattern of
dioceses or other fiscal units created at the same time. There were some anomalies from the
first, for logic and convenience did not always match, traditions had sometimes to be respected,
and compromises had inevitably to be worked out. The pattern of mints was modified from time
to time in the course of the fourth century, old mints being closed and new ones created for
longer or shorter periods. The changes, and the reasons behind them, have been discussed at
length by Hendy in the articles referred to and need not concern us here. By the late fourth
century, the pattern of local mints was more or less that set out in Table 8, though mints contin-
ued to come and go. Siscia (mod. Sisak), an exceptionally important mint in the middle decades
of the fourth century, was closed ca. 387, some five years after Sirmium (mod. Mitrovica), which
had come to overshadow it in the late 350s. Ravenna did not exist as a mint before 402, and
Milan was added to Aquileia as a second mint in north Italy because it was the virtual capital of
the Western Empire between the accession of Valentinian II and 402. The absence of mints in
48
ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL 49
TABLE 8
Dioceses and Mints in the Late Fourth and Early Fifth Centuries
Prefectures Dioceses, etc. Mints
Thrace Heraclea
Constantinople
The East Pontus Nicomedia
Asia Cyzicus
Oriens Antioch
Egypt Alexandria
Dacia —-
Illyricum Macedonia Thessalonica
Illyricum Sirmium, Siscia
Italy Aquileia, Milan,
fiat Ravenna (after 402)
aa Suburbicaria Rome
Africa ——
Britain
The Gauls Trier, Lyon
The Gauls Viennensis Arles
Spain (Barcelona under the
usurper Maximus)
such wealthy provinces as Africa and Spain—opulentissimae provinciae, as they are termed by a
contemporary—shows how the government, concerned with its own administrative and military
requirements, was indifferent to the convenience and indeed the needs of ordinary folk. The
curious geographical arrangement in the East, whereby there were four major mints within fifty
miles of each other around the Sea of Marmara, derived from the fact that they were in different
dioceses and that, other things being equal, it was convenient to have a mint handling vast
amounts of copper in a seaport.
Each mint, in the late fourth century, was under the supervision of a manager known as a
procurator monetae. This office went back to at least the Flavian period, though in the time of the
Principate there was only a single such official, that of Rome, and the multiplication of procura-
tores was a consequence of the creation of regular provincial mints by Diocletian (Peachin 1986).
Tenure of the office, probably for a period of five years, made part of the regular equestrian.
cursus, being among the first centenarial posts one might hold after completing the typical
equestrian military service. It could lead to a higher position in the financial branch of the
administration, though the post was one that required managerial skills rather than technical
knowledge. It was in any case one in which a capacity for giving orders would not come amiss.
Minting itself would be carried on in a building or buildings set aside for the purpose and
recognizable as a moneta publica. This description is found as early as 369 (CTh IX.21.7, 8) and
continued to be used, in Italy at least, into the Middle Ages, with the buildings themselves serv-
ing as recognizable landmarks (cf. RAVENNA in Section C below). The administration of the
mints fell under the jurisdiction of the count of the sacred largesses (comes sacrarum largitionum).
Quite apart from the evidence of the Notitia Dignitatum, a model patent of appointment in the
Variae of Cassiodorus includes among the count’s responsibilities that of securing that the em-
50 MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
peror’s portrait should be adequately reproduced on the coins for the edification of posterity
(Cassiodorus, Variae 6.7, in MGH, Auct. antig. X11.180: “Verum hanc liberalitatem nostram alio
decoras obsequio, ut figura vultus nostri metallis usualibus imprimatur, monetamque facis de
nostris temporibus futura saecula commonere”). Though the procuratores belonged to the count’s
department, they must necessarily have worked in close association with the offices of the prae-
torian prefects, who looked after the assessment and collection of the land tax and thus in the
last resort provided the bullion required by the mints.
In the first half of the fourth century, there was an appreciable amount of mint specializa-
tion, with some mints striking little gold and others little bronze, and in 366/7, during the reign
of Valentinian I, a drastic reform of minting arrangements that has been described already (pp.
30-1) was carried out. Three laws of Valentinian I ordered that the coins in which taxes were
paid were henceforward not to be accepted by tale or even by weight but were to be melted,
purified, and eventually accepted by weight in ingot form (in massam obryzae). This purification
was made manifest on the coins struck from these ingots by the use of the letters OB (i.e.,
obryzacus, from the noun obryzum or OBevCov, a technical term for pure gold), which appeared
on solidi for the first time in February 368, usually combined with a local mint signature
(CONOB, AQOB, TROB, etc.). The analysis of coins struck before and after the reform has
demonstrated how successful it was (Morrisson et al. 1985, 85—6). A similar but undocumented
reform in the quality of the silver coinage took place at the same time, the letters PS (sometimes
P, PVS, or PVSV), for pusulatum, “refined silver,’ being often added to the mint-mark (MDPS,
AQPS, etc.), or in one case, at Rome in 409-10, substituted for it (PST), and the proportion of
copper in the coins declining from 5.4% to 1.4%.
Soon after this reform of the actual process of minting, there took place an even more
drastic overhaul of minting arrangements, for the striking of gold was removed from the monetae
publicae and made the responsibility of the central comitiva of the sacred largesses, which did not
operate locally but as part of the central administration from wherever the emperor and his
court happened to be. This explains why Trier was the main mint for gold under Valentinian I
and Gratian in the years 367-81, and Antioch for Valens in 371-8. The central departments,
listed in the constitution of 384 and now most thoroughly studied by King (1980b), included a
scrintum auri massae, presumably the central treasury for gold, a scrinium auri ad responsum of
uncertain function, a scrinium ab argento, a scrintum a miliarensibus, and a scrinium ad pecunias. The
small size of each of the latter departments shows that they must have been concerned with the
registration and custody of bullion rather than actual minting, though the six members of
the scrintum a miliarensibus might have been capable of the occasional and quite limited produc-
tion of silver multiples. The large subdivision of the scrintum auri massae labeled aurifices solido-
rum, with a departmental head (ducenarius), 7 centenaru, 6 epistulares, 9 formae primae, and 30
formae secundae, must on the other hand have been responsible for the actual striking of gold
coin. The existence of a traveling mint accompanying the court as it moved from place to place
was postulated by Elmer (1930; 1936, 29-30), and the relations between the personnel of these
central bureaux and local mints has been much discussed. Bruun’s conclusions have much to be
said in their favor: “As gold (and silver) coinage was usually connected with an imperial visit to
the mint-city in question, we may presume that the financial authorities formed a special ad hoc
minting unit within the framework of the mint, drawing on the labour available at the mint and
attaching to it personnel (engravers, designers, and supervisors) from the train of the emperor”
(RIC VI1.24; cf. also Bruun 1961, 23-77).
New mints could of course be set up in places where there was no mint previously, as was
ORGANIZATION AND CONTROL 51
the case with Ravenna in 402, but this would have to be manned by a staff transferred from
elsewhere—Ostia in 308 or 309 by a staff drawn from Carthage and subsequently (312 or 313)
settled at Arles, Ravenna in 402/4 by a staff drawn from Aquileia and Milan (Ulrich-Bansa 1949,
171, 172 note 15). These transfers are not formally documented, but can be inferred from
continuities in the style and fabric of the coins. A few of the local mints thus abandoned might
actually be closed and their buildings disposed of or relegated to other uses, but more often, if
the place was of any consequence and a mint might be required there in the future, they would
be retained with a procurator and a skeleton staff which could be reactivated when occasion
required. (References to specific procuratores monetae in the Notitia are consequently not as help-
ful in dating the document as some scholars [Salisbury 1933] have assumed.) This is probably
what occurred at Milan in the first half of the fifth century. Very active in striking gold up to 402
and after 450, it is commonly described as having been “closed” in 404 and “reopened” ca. 450.
But we now know that it struck gold in the name of John in 423—5 and in that of Valentinian
III quite early in his reign (below, p. 237), not simply in his last five years, so that “lapsed into a
period of inactivity” would clearly be preferable to “closure” when referring to its history after
404. The mint of Ostia, on the other hand, created adventitiously with a staff from Carthage
after the revolt of Domitius Alexander in Africa, was probably really “closed” in 312/13, for it
never minted again and the natural mint in the region was Rome itself.
There is no contemporary evidence that would allow us to form a picture of the size and
internal structure of a fourth- or fifth-century mint. Sozomen (Hist. eccles. 5.15; cf. Callu 1972),
relating how Julian banned a group of Christians from Cyzicus, implies that its working popu-
lation was largely made up of the employees of the imperial textile factory and the mint, but the
first category would have been much larger than the second and in any case we have no idea of
the size of Cyzicus at the time. Our knowledge of Roman minting personnel comes mainly from
a source many centuries earlier in date, a group of dedicatory inscriptions dating from a.p. 115
that were discovered in 1585 on the Mons Caelius at Rome, close to the church of San Clemente
southeast of the Colosseum (CIJL V1.42, 43, 44, 239, 791; for commentaries see Mowat 1909,
103-8; Carson 1956, 229-35; Alféldi 1959; Lafaurie 1972, 267-71; Gébl 1978, 163 and tables
3—4). The head of the mint was a certain Felix, styled optio et exactor auri argenti et aeris. His
deputy (optio) Albanus was at the head of 16 officinatores (assisted by 9 slaves), 17 signatores, 11
suppostores, and 38 malleatores, while there are an indefinite number of conductores, flaturariae,
argentariae, and others, of which details are lacking since some of the panels are damaged or
missing. The functions of these various groups have been much discussed—malleatores are
clearly hammermen, their numbers larger than the others because of the exhausting character
of their work and the need for shifts—and need not concern us here. The total number of
persons actually named is just short of a hundred, and at least as many more must have been
involved in the melting and refining departments and in the preparation of blanks. In the fourth
and fifth centuries, a comparable staff, amounting to at least a couple of hundred persons, may
well have existed at Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, but the others are likely to
have been much smaller in size.
The inscription of a.p. 115 refers to officinatores, the heads of subdepartments in the mint,
and fourth- and fifth-century mints were in varying measure subdivided into officinae. These are
identified on many coin series by numerals, either the plain cardinal numbers or the initial
letters of ordinal numbers (P for primus, etc.), usually placed at the end of the reverse inscrip-
tions or after the mint-mark in the exergue. On some of the bronze coins of Arles and Lyon,
and on those of Rome between 402 and 409 (728-30), they are in the field preceded by OF(F),
52 MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
making their meaning plain. It is generally assumed that their function was to assist the author-
ities in checking the efficiency of the work force and identifying those responsible if substandard
coins got into circulation. They sometimes had an administrative function, with each officina
specializing in the production of coins in the name of a particular emperor. Early bronze coins
of Arcadius at Constantinople and Thessalonica, for example, were struck by the third officina
in these two mints (5-11, 63). There is some evidence that the products of each officina were
issued separately, for although they rapidly became mixed in circulation, a few hoards show a
great disproportion of coins from single officinae. The 46 Constantinopolitan solidi of Zeno in
the Izmit hoard (Eb¢ioglu 1966) included 31 of the ninth officina and ten of the tenth, with only
five of officinae 1-8; five of the eight solidi of Leo I in the Midlum hoard were from the tenth
officina (Boeles 1951, 503-4, nos. 15-19); six solidi of the same ruler that made up a small
hoard found in north Brandenburg in 1879 were all of the sixth officina (W. Rentzmann in Z{N
8 [1881], Verhandlungen, 8). Such figures point to the coins having gone into circulation to-
gether, though whether they were also closely die-linked as well is unfortunately not recorded.
Although a large proportion of late imperial coins were produced in officinae whose iden-
tity is stated on them, there remain many for which this is not the case. Officina numerals are
usually limited to solidi and bronze coins, with none on other denominations of gold—multiples.
and fractions—or on silver. Nor are they present on consular solidi or other special issues, and
even when most specimens of an issue bear an officina numeral, there are usually some without
one (e.g., 387, 476). The number of officinae in a mint is surprisingly unpredictable. In the East,
solidi of Constantinople were distributed over ten officinae, while those of Thessalonica, apart
from one issue of Zeno struck by dies apparently supplied by Constantinople (664-5), lack
ofhcina numerals completely. In the West, Trier had in the late fourth century three officinae
and Lyon had two, but no officina numerals are found on solidi of Milan or, in the fifth century,
on those of Ravenna. The officina numerals on solidi are sometimes different in size from those
of the rest of the reverse legend or badly aligned with them (Grierson 1960; Sutherland 1962),
implying that the dies were initially made without the numerals and these were added later. On
bronze coins, on the other hand, alignments seem to be what one would expect and the officina
numerals presumably inserted when the main type and legend were being engraved.
Some of these anomalies can be explained. Multiples, consular solidi, semisses, and the like
were all exceptional and struck in small numbers, so the supervision of their production would
have required less elaborate arrangements than would that of solidi. Tremisses were part of the
general circulating medium from only about the 420s onward; when they started they had be-
longed to the category of exceptional issues, and initial minting arrangements would have
tended to be carried on from force of habit. If a mint started production on a small scale, as
that of Ravenna may have done, it could have become accustomed to doing without an elaborate
officina organization like that of Constantinople. The reason why the numerals were added later
on the solidi may have been that the needs of particular officinae could not be exactly foreseen,
though this of course implies that officinae had “needs” that could be predicted in advance, and
we do not know why the output of one officina might greatly exceed that of another, as certainly
occurred. Officina numerals were sometimes recut—e.g., 629 (A recut over I’), 630 (A recut over
€)—showing that more dies might be allocated to an officina than it needed and could if neces-
sary be diverted elsewhere, for example, to help out an officina that had more work than antic-
ipated or had run short of dies through breakage. It is certain that officinae were not closed
workshops, for the linkages of individual obverse dies with reverse dies of different officinae
have been noted from the period of the Tetrarchy (Bastien 1960; Sutherland 1962) and that of
MINT-MARKS AND PRIVY MARKS 53
Zeno (Grierson 1961). The explanation may be, as Sutherland suggested, that the obverse dies,
which bore the imperial effigy and were therefore of greater consequence—more “sacred,” in-
deed—were kept under lock and key in the custody of the mint superintendent. They were
perhaps collected overnight when work ended, as this was sometimes the practice in medieval
mints, and subsequently, since their particular identities were of no importance, distributed
more or less at random to the workmen of the various officinae.
B. MINT-MARKS AND PRIVY MARKS
The geographical distribution of the provincial mints has been explained in the preceding
section. In the period covered by this volume, the striking of gold was confined to comitatensian
mints. This in the East meant effectively Constantinople, though there was intermittent minting,
on two occasions on a quite substantial scale, at Thessalonica throughout the period. At Antioch
there were also brief and minuscule issues by Zeno, presumably during the eighteen months in
475/6 when he had lost control of Constantinople, and by the usurper Leontius. Silver is known
only from Constantinople and, very occasionally, from Thessalonica. Bronze was initially being
minted at the seven mints of Constantinople, Thessalonica, Heraclea, Nicomedia, Cyzicus, An-
tioch, and Alexandria, but the number of mints declined in the course of the century, and by
Zeno’s time Constantinople seems to have been the only mint still active, though again with
sporadic issues from Antioch by himself and Leontius.
The pattern in the West was more complicated, reflecting in this the vicissitudes of its polit-
ical history. Gold coins were formally produced only at comitatensian mints, which in 383, at the
date of Arcadius’ accession, effectively meant Trier (by Gratian) and Milan, Thessalonica, and
Rome (by Valentinian II). But the political changes and the movements of emperors during the
next few decades meant minting initially at three more: Lyon, Arles, and Aquileia. In the fifth
century the Gallic mints for the most part dropped out completely. Aquileia did not mint after
the 420s and Milan not on any scale in the half-century 404—50. Ravenna was added to the list
in 402 and served thenceforward as the main mint for gold in the West. Arles was revived under
the Gallic emperor Avitus and continued to mint sporadically down to the time of Theoderic.
Silver, little struck after 400, was practically limited to Lyon, Trier, Milan, Rome, and Ravenna.
Bronze was in the end practically limited to Rome.
Mints were identified on the vast majority of the coins, from the Diocletianic reforms on-
ward, by mint-marks consisting sometimes of the mint’ initial (e.g., R for Roma) but more often
by the first syllable of its name (LVG, TES) or the initial and another prominent letter (LD, MD).
They were sometimes accompanied by SM, for Sacra Moneta. This situation continued un-
changed for the bronze coinage through the fourth and fifth centuries, but the gold and silver
coins, as a result of the Valentinianic reform, were modified in 368 by addition of OB, for
obryzum or solidus obriziacus, or of PS, for pusulatus or argentum pusulatum, and subsequently by
the incorporation of COM, for comes auri, the official in charge of the gold in the treasury, as
described already.
The mint-marks on the bronze require little comment. The decision on whether or not to
add SM to the mint-mark seems to have been taken locally and does not conform to any rules.
Some mints (e.g., Constantinople, Antioch) did not use SM in combination with a local mint-
mark at all; others (Thessalonica, Rome) did so only occasionally; a few (Heraclea, Nicomedia,
Cyzicus) did so invariably up to the fourth decade of the fifth century. Then a gap in provincial
minting seems to have occurred, and when production was resumed the SM was dropped and a
mint-mark consisting of the first syllable of the mint, conforming to the practice of Constanti-
54 MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
nople, was adopted, with NIC and CVZ replacing SMN and SMK. Heraclea, which had previ-
ously used SMH, ceased to mint altogether.
Prior to 368 the mint-marks on the silver did not basically differ from those on the bronze,
with SM sometimes used and sometimes not. After 368 there was a divergence between Eastern
and Western practice, the East continuing as before and the West adding PS to the usual mint
abbreviation, giving TRPS, AQPS, etc. The change was made at the same time as the introduc-
tion of OB, for at Trier it occurs on a VOTIS V MVLTIS X miliarense of Valentinian I and
Valens of this year (RIC 18/23b and c, 25). The PS might be shortened to P, as on siliquae of
Siscia with SISCP (RIC 148/17-18), or extended by V, as with SMSPV once at Sirmium (RIC 160/
11). There can, however, have been no obligation to use it, for it was not immediately adopted
at Rome, where silver coins struck prior to 395 have a simple R, or ever in the East, where
Constantinople contented itself with CONS or CON and Thessalonica with TES or TE, the
letters in the last case separated by a Chi-Rho. There is, however, a puzzling use of CM (as
CONCM or CNCM) on solidi of Constantinople in the period 375/8 (RIC 222/42 bis) that has
not been satisfactorily explained; the RIC suggestion (IX.203) of comitatensis militia or moneta is
implausible, and it is possible that CM stands for some Greek equivalent of pusulatum that has
not yet been identified. In the fifth century the addition of PS remained normal in the West
(AQPS, RVPS), being finally adopted at Rome (RMPS), though Trier in 407-13 revived Moneta
Sacra with TRMS and Rome under Priscus Attalus used PST (pusulatum) alone, without a specific
mint letter. Half-siliquae of Milan and Ravenna, no doubt because of their small size, used MD
and RV only. In the East, where PS was never adopted and the minting of silver was limited to
Constantinople and Thessalonica, the old mint-marks tended progressively to be blundered.
CONS, by analogy with CONOB, became a meaningless CONOS (e.g., 655) which was to be
regular in the sixth century, and on one miliarense of Leo I CONS is replaced by CONOB (548)
as if obryzum could be used of refined silver instead of being a term limited to refined gold.
The changes in the mint-marks on the gold are more complicated than those on the silver,
for they involved not merely OB, defining the greater purity of the metal, but COM, referring
to the comes auri and at first used alone instead of OB but subsequently in association with OB
as COMOB.
Prior to the Valentinianic reforms, the mint-marks on the gold had not differed in any
significant fashion from those on the silver and bronze, the mint letters being sometimes
combined with SM and sometimes not. OB was added to the traditional mint-mark in the
decades following 368, being introduced at seven mints, Trier (TROB), Milan (MDOB), Aquileia
(AQOB), Rome (ROMOB), Sirmium (SIROB), Thessalonica (TESOB), Constantinople
(CONOB), and Antioch (ANOB or ANTOB). Presumably there was a general directive on the
matter, though a few mints, notably Rome, persisted with the old marks, Rome using RM in
375/8, a simple R in 383/8, and ROMOB only briefly in 388/92.
In the 380s a novel formula, COM alone without mint-letters, was introduced at Milan and
Thessalonica, and on solidi of the late fourth century it occurs either alone or in association with
mint-letters at five mints: Trier (TR/COM), Lyon (LD/COM), Aquileia (AQ/COM), Milan (COM
or MD/COM), and Thessalonica (COM). The date of its introduction appears to have been 383,
for at Thessalonica it appears, as COM only, on an issue in which Gratian and Arcadius overlap
(RIC 180/34h and k), and prior to 388 it was limited to Valentinian II’s mints of Thessalonica,
Aquileia, and Milan, the latter almost immediately adding MD in the field to distinguish its
products from those of Thessalonica. It was not, prior to 388, adopted by either Theodosius in
the East or by Maximus in Gaul. Presumably the office of comes auri was a creation of Valentini-
MINT-MARKS AND PRIVY MARKS 55
an’s ministers, or else some change in the organization of the offices of the count of the sacred
largesses enhanced the status of this official and led him to decide that his mark alone on gold
coins would guarantee its quality without reference to either mint or OB. If so, however, he
quickly had to reconcile himself to the reappearance of a mint-mark.
The geographical distribution of the new formula was changed by the reorganization of
frontiers carried out by Theodosius in 388, after the downfall of Maximus. Theodosius retained
MD/COM at Milan, and Valentinian II introduced TR/COM and LD/COM at his newly acquired
mints in Gaul, but Theodosius did not attempt to extend it to the East. After he returned to
Constantinople in 391, however, he added OB to the formula, perhaps in order to produce
something resembling the familiar CONOB of that mint, so that COMOB appeared at Thessa-
lonica, and, assuming that the SM/COMOB coins are of Constantinople, at the mint of the
capital. Eugenius (392-4) still used only the x/COM formula, his gold coins of Trier, Lyon, and
Milan having respectively TR/COM, LD/COM, and MD/COM as mint-marks. It was not until
the end of 394, when Theodosius became again master of the West, that COMOB was intro-
duced there, and in combination with mint-letters in the field (MD/COMOB, RM/COMOB, etc.)
became the standard mint-mark under Honorius and his successors. COM in association with
mint-letters, however, was retained for a time on tremisses, since COM would be fitted more
easily than COMOB into the small space of the exergue, and only late in the reign of Honorius
was it replaced by COMOB (cf. 737 with RV/COM and 738-9 with RV/COMOB). In the East,
Constantinople reverted under Arcadius to the traditional CONOB, and Thessalonica, after
briefly retaining COMOB, produced a comparable TESOB.
This set the pattern for most of the fifth century: CONOB and marginally TESOB (later
THSOB) for the gold coinage of the East, COMOB with a mint identification in the field for
that of the West. COMOB was briefly introduced in the East for Theodosius II’s huge IMP
XXXXII coinage of 442/3, the great majority of the solidi struck in his name and those of his
imperial colleagues having a simple COMOB and no officina numeral instead of CONOB (be-
low, p. 147). The explanation is unknown. The coins are purely Constantinopolitan in style and
fabric, and there can be no doubt that the dies were supplied by the regular staff of the mint of
the capital. Kent suggested that the coins were struck by the comitatensian mint at various lo-
calities in Asia Minor during a leisurely excursion through Asia Minor that the emperor is re-
corded as having made in the summer of 443, but it is not clear that the coins were as late as
this; most if not all of them probably belong to 442. Clearly there was some temporary reorga-
nization of minting at Constantinople, the details of which escape us. TESOB/THSOB on the
coins of Thessalonica was replaced by CONOB in the reign of Zeno, as described in the section
on the mint.
In the West, the use of a specific mint identification had to be abandoned for semisses and
tremisses when the types of these were changed under Valentinian III and a Christogram or a
cross in a wreath replaced the seated or standing Victory that had been the traditional types of
these denominations. With a wreath filling the reverse field there was no room for an RV or
RM; the coins simply have COMOB beneath the wreath, and mint identifications depend on
style. In the second half of the fifth century, indeed, the Western convention of using COMOB
for solidi began to break down, and CONOB occurs irregularly on coins struck in Italy and at
Arles. Confusion between the two formulae would have been facilitated by the similarity of the
letters M and N, which were not always pronounced distinctly (cf. such spellings as IMVICTA,
SENPER), and by then neither formula is likely to have meant anything precise to the die-
sinkers. While in many cases the M or N is clearly inscribed on the dies and there is no difficulty
56 MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
in distinguishing between them, an increasing number of coins in the later decades of the cen-
tury give the impression that the engraver was deliberately leaving the reading uncertain.
In addition to their mint-marks and officina numerals or initials, late Roman coins often
have privy marks in either the reverse field or the exergue. They are much more plentiful on
the bronze coins than on those of gold and silver, and are characteristic of the fourth century
rather than of the fifth. (An exception is the star in the field of Eastern gold coins that was
introduced in 403; see below, p. 87.) Their profusion and extraordinary diversity in the first
half of the fourth century is evident from the material collected and tabulated by Missong (1880)
and more coherently reproduced in the indexes and tables of successive volumes of RIC. The
commonest are one or more letters or pellets, a numeral, a star or crescent (sun or moon), a
palm branch or wreath, a cross or Christogram or Chi-Rho, or a simple leaf. A few are metro-
logical in character—e.g., XCVI or LXXII on coins struck 96 or 72 to the pound—but the
meaning of most of them escapes us. Presumably they are intended to identify particular issues
for reasons of mint control, but even when it is possible to determine that some mark character-
izes coins struck in a particular year—e.g., the S or V in the field of AE 3 of Lyon distinguishing
coins struck in 394 or 395, since there are no coins of Theodosius with V—we do not know that
this was their primary purpose or what the significance of these particular letters may have been.
A privy mark like the wreath in the left field on AE 2 of 383 from all Eastern mints is clearly
there in response to some general directive, but more frequently the arrangement and choice
of privy marks is likely to have been decided within the walls of an individual mint. In some
cases, where the same mark occurs at more than one mint, it may have resulted simply from
copying, since mint officials undoubtedly exchanged information between themselves on what
they were doing.
C. MINTS
A list of the mints of the period in alphabetical order follows, with brief accounts of their
history. There are four presumed mints—Bologna, Cherson, Narbonne, and Pavia—that need
to be disposed of first. The first is imaginary; the second and fourth have had coins attributed
to them but are unlikely to have been minting at the time; and the existence of the third has
been dismissed by a good authority but may be given the benefit of the doubt.
BOLOGNA, in north Italy, has had attributed to it by Lacam a number of solidi which he
believes were struck there during Theoderic’s campaign of 488/9 (Lacam 1983, II.880—98, pls.
208-12). The coins are varied in style, some having COMOB or CONOR in the exergue and
others having CONOB and an officina numeral at the end of the reverse inscription. The first
two groups are certainly Italian, but for the most part without clear mint attributions; the last
seem to be Constantinopolitan, the solidi of the capital varying a good deal in style over the
decade and a half of Zeno’s reign. The only coin for which a case can be made out is a solidus
with a narrow, elongated bust of characteristic Milanese style, and a theta beside the Victory’s leg
as on some coins of Milan (679-80), but apparently having BA instead of MD in the field and
COBOB in the exergue (Ulrich-Bansa 1949, pl. 15/162; enlargement [x 4], Lacam 1983, pl.
208). Ulrich-Bansa (p. 412) raised no question of the attribution to Milan, and it must in fact be
doubted if the letter-forms in Lacam’s enlargement, however convincing at first glance, are any-
thing more than the result of a chance quirk in the lighting. Lacam had not himself seen the
coin, and knew of it only from a photo provided by Ulrich-Bansa.
The case for a mint at CHERSON, the chief Byzantine outpost of empire on the north coast
MINTS 57
of the Black Sea, is rather better than that for one at Bologna, but it is still unconvincing. Cher-
son was, it is true, a substantial if local mint for copper from the mid-sixth to the mid-seventh
century and again from the late ninth to the late tenth (Anokhin 1977; Hahn 1978). On coins
from Justinian to Constans II, the mint is identified by a monogram or initial, or even by the
name inscribed in full. The fifth-century coins attributed to Cherson have no similar mint-mark.
They are a group of closely related AE 2 struck in the names of Leo I, Verina, and Zeno (LRBC
2251-7, 2277; 560, 561, 598, 604), to which should perhaps be added an equally anomalous AE
2 of Theodosius II (LRBC 2231; 435). Coins of the first group, so far as is known, have never
been found except at Cherson or in the vicinity, but all save the one of Zeno, which is without
mint-mark, have in the exergue CON or CONE. On the evidence of the find spots, a number of
Russian scholars (L. N. Belova, I. V. Sokolova, V. A. Anokhin) have been inclined to attribute
them in whole or in part to Cherson. Hahn on the other hand prefers to regard them as excep-
tional products of the Constantinople mint, though perhaps intended to supply some particular
need in Cherson and its vicinity (Hahn 1978, 414), and this is the view that has been taken here
(pp. 164-5, 170, 174).
The third possible mint is NARBONNE, the old capital of Gallia Narbonensis. It was a mint
in early imperial times and was later to be one in the Visigothic period, but claims for its func-
tioning under the late Empire were carefully examined and dismissed by Carson (1950). These
claims partly depend on the existence of such mint-marks as NAR, SMNA, SMN, and a probably
misread SMNARB, partly on a passage in a poem by Sidonius Apollinaris in praise of Narbonne
which includes “mints” among the listed features that make it a great city, and partly on the
existence of a solidus of Priscus Attalus with N B in the field. The mint-marks in fact are ones
of Arles or Nicomedia; Sidonius Apollinaris’ reference is probably no more than rhetoric; and
the coin with N B is cited by Cohen on the authority of Mionnet (below, p. 223) but its present
whereabouts are unknown, so that Carson is inclined to doubt its existence, or at least its au-
thenticity. Narbonne was the capital of the Visigoths, however, at the time of Attalus’ second
“usurpation” under their auspices, and it is quite possible that a mint was set up to strike coins
in his name, just as one was set up at Barcelona by the usurper Maximus at almost the same
time (see BARCELONA below). But even if a mint did exist at Narbonne in the fifth century, it
would have been, like Barcelona, no more than the mint of a usurper.
Finally there is PAVIA, the ancient Ticinum, 30 km south of Milan on the River Ticino close
to its confluence with the Po. In Roman times it was one of the major cities of north Italy. It was
a mint under the Tetrarchy and Constantine, with mint-mark T, but was closed in 326. Coins
have also been attributed to it in the fifth century, but wrongly. Tolstoi assigned to it doubtfully
a solidus of Zeno (T 38) having a reverse inscription that ended TI, which he interpreted as
TIcinum, but Lederer called attention to the existence of other coins with TB, TZ, etc., and
proposed to read these as T (for Ticinum) followed by an officina letter, thus making the coins a
series struck at Pavia by Odovacar in the name of Zeno (Lederer 1934). Lacam arrived indepen-
dently at the same attribution for these and some stylistically related coins, but interpreting the
T as Theoderic’s initial (Lacam 1983, I1.863—80). Lallemand on the other hand has interpreted
the T as standing for Thessalonica (Lallemand 1964b), and since the coins are purely Eastern
in style and fabric, this mint attribution has been preferred for the two specimens in this collec-
tion (664-5). The existence of a mint at Pavia in the late fifth century seems unlikely, despite
Theoderic’s having made his headquarters in the city during the winter of 489/90, for there was
one in the immediate vicinity at Milan. It is true that a mint was sited at Pavia in the sixth century,
for there are coins of the Ostrogothic king Baduila (541-52) with the specific legend FELIX
58 MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
TICINVS, but Pavia was the Ostrogothic capital and the revival of a mint at Milan would at that
date have been scarcely possible, the city having been destroyed and its inhabitants massacred
in March 539 in the most appalling atrocity of the Gothic War.
Leaving these aside, the mints were as follows:
ALEXANDRIA, capital of Egypt, rivaled Antioch as the greatest city in the eastern half of
the Empire prior to the creation of Constantinople; even subsequently it remained the most
active center of commerce in the entire Mediterranean. It was a mint throughout the fourth
century but was almost exclusively one for bronze, the few gold and silver coins it struck being
limited to the opening decades of the century. This limitation to bronze was in part a conse-
quence of the permanent absence of the imperial comitatus—no emperor after Diocletian visited
Egypt—but effectively continued the tradition of the later Principate, when the output of the
Alexandrian mint, though immense, had been limited to billon tetradrachms. The failure to
mint in gold and silver underlines the extent to which imperial minting policy could ignore what
must have been the economic requirements of an active commercial society. Silver in fact seems
to have circulated very little in the country, as indeed had been the case earlier, and since Egypt
lay in the diocese of the East (Oriens) its needs for gold could easily be supplied by Antioch. This
mint, for example, accounted for 20 out of 29 solidi (68%) in a small hoard of ca. 366 found
near Karanis in 1974 (Arce 1987).
In the fourth century the AE issues of Alexandria followed the general pattern of such
coinages elsewhere, but Egypt had strong traditions of independence and the mint authorities
allowed themselves much freedom in detail, occasionally failing to coin in the names of partic-
ular imperial colleagues or diverging from the general pattern of other mints in the use of
broken or unbroken legends (cf. RIC 1X.296—7). The mint-mark in the late fourth and fifth
centuries was consistently ALE followed by an officina numeral, initially four (A, B, [ and A)
but only two (A, B) from Arcadius onward. There was apparently an interruption of minting in
the 420s, for there are no coins of Theodosius II’s later issues or of Marcian, and the only
subsequent ones noted in LRBC are Leo I’s type with a crouching lion (LRBC 2932). This cessa-
tion of regular minting in the middle decades of the century provided the incentive for the
irregular minting on a huge scale of the ill-struck nummi that make up hoards of the period (cf.
Milne 1926; Pearce 1938e). When minting at Alexandria revived in the sixth century, the mint
employed and obstinately retained a system of denominations quite different from those else-
where.
ANTIOCH, the ancient capital of Syria, was with Constantinople and Alexandria one of
the three major cities in the East (Downey 1961), and, thanks to the writings of Libanius and its
prominent role in ecclesiastical politics, it is one on which we are unusually well-informed in the
fourth and fifth centuries (Liebeschuetz 1972; Downey 1962). Under Valens, indeed, it tempo-
rarily displaced Constantinople as the main imperial residence in the East. Its mint output was
enormous, and in the time of Valens it was remarkable in its production of gold medallions as
well as solidi. The two most astonishing medallions in the Szilagy S6mly6 hoard (Gnecchi 1912,
pls. 16/1, 17/1) are Germanic copies of Antiochene multiples of Valens, and nearly half the
Eastern coins in the Dortmund hoard—52 out of 113—were solidi of Valentinian I and Valens
of the same mint (Regling 1908, 19). The picture may be in some measure distorted, it is true,
by the sequel to the disaster of Adrianople, for Valens had come straight from Antioch and,
although the imperial treasure had been deposited in Adrianople and was saved (Amm. Marc.,
MINTS 59
Hist. XXXI.15.2), the plunder after the battle must have been enormous and contributed to the
dissemination of Antiochene gold throughout the Germanic world.
In the period covered by this volume, the mint output of Antioch consisted almost entirely
of bronze. The only exceptions were due to the city having on two occasions entertained an
emperor, albeit in one case a refugee and in the other a usurper. The British Museum acquired
in 1979 a solidus of Zeno with the mint-mark ANTIOB which was presumably struck sometime
during the twenty months of his exile from Constantinople in 475/6 (below, p. 174). The usurp-
er’s solidi, of which several specimens with the mint-mark ANTIX are known, are ones of Leon-
tius, who was for a time in possession of Antioch during his revolt against Zeno in 484-8 (below,
p. 190). The other coins are all of bronze. The mint-mark is normally ANT—occasionally AN—
accompanied by an officina numeral (A, B, I’, or A), but in the later issues only A is found. There
seems to have been a tendency for products of Officina [ to predominate, as was to be the case
also in the sixth and early seventh centuries (DOC I1.40), though for what reason is unknown.
The mint seems to have been inactive during part of Theodosius II’s reign, but there are coins
of Marcian and Leo (LRBC 2811-13) and ones of Zeno (Brenot 1968, with ANT) and Leontius
(Walker 1967), though the latter are without mint-mark and their attribution to Antioch is there-
fore, strictly speaking, not certain.
AQUILEIA, at the head of the Adriatic, controlled the main roads from Italy into Noricum,
Pannonia, and the Balkans and was an important city throughout the Imperial period, as its
extensive Roman and early Christian remains testify. It became a mint in the period of the
Tetrarchy and had a few years of intense activity in the mid-fourth century under Magnentius,
who made it his base of operations in the war against Constantius II. It was subsequently mainly
active in striking bronze (LRBC 881-1114), though gold and silver, including splendid multiples,
were minted from time to time. There is a useful sketch of its minting history by Panvini (1978a),
mainly based on studies by Ulrich-Bansa and material in RIC, with a very complete bibliography.
The normal mint-mark was AQ, usually followed on bronze coins by an officina numeral (P, S
or B, I) and for a time preceded by SM. Silver coins have AQPS (replacing SMAQ) after 368
and solidi AQOB or AQ in the field and COMOB (briefly COM) in the exergue.
Aquileia was supplanted in 402/4 by Ravenna, which took over its personnel but normally
minted only in gold and silver, leaving Rome thenceforward as the normal producer of bronze
coin in the peninsula. The mint was briefly reopened for Galla Placidia in the summer of 425,
during the campaign against John, with solidi of Constantinopolitan type and mint-mark AQ/
COMOB being struck in her name (825) and in that of Theodosius II, but no coins of other
denominations are known. The city was destroyed by Attila in his campaign of 451, tradition
having it that Venice was first effectively populated by refugees from the disaster. The city never
recovered, partly for physical reasons—the land on which it was built was slowly sinking, as the
double layers of mosaic in the Duomo so clearly show—but mainly because Ravenna was now
the imperial capital in north Italy.
ARLES (Arelate, Constantina), in Gallia Narbonensis at the apex of the Rhéne delta, was
one of the chief towns of Roman Gaul (Constans 1921; Garnier III.157—71), being an inland
port accessible to seagoing vessels and initially favored by the Romans as against the “Greek”
Marseille. The Diocletianic provincial reorganization made it the capital of the diocese of Vien-
nensis. Constantine resided there on three occasions and renamed it Constantina in 328 in
honor of his son Constantine II, who had been born there in 314. For the next century the old
60 MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
and new names competed with each other in the mint signatures on the coins (Kent 1957a,
superseding Laffranchi 1929). These were A, AR or ARL between 314 and 328, CONST or
CON between 328 and 340, and again ARL or AR between 340 and 353, that is, between the
death of Constantine II and the downfall of Magnentius. Constantius II restored the dynastic
name of the city, and a variety of abbreviations of Constantina (CON, CONS, KONS, KONST,
KONSTAN with TAN as a monogram) were used from 353 down to the reign of Honorius.
Then Arelate reestablished itself. Initially, under Constantine III and Jovinus (407-13), AR in
the field was used on the gold, with CONOB or COMOB, or even KOMOB, in the exergue, and
SMAR or KONT on the silver. Eventually, in the second half of the century, on the rare solidi
that were struck from Avitus to Romulus Augustulus and the period of Odovacar, A R appears
regularly in the field with COMOB in the exergue. One group of solidi in the name of Zeno,
however, which is attributed with much probability to Arles by both Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 335)
and Lacam (1983, I1.673-—80, pls. 168-9), has an A at the end of the reverse legend instead of
A R in the field. Tremisses of the second half of the fifth century—there are none of the first
half—have COMOB only, and attribution is based on style and the frequent substitution of a
Christogram for the customary cross in the wreath of the reverse type.
The mint was founded in 313 or 314 with personnel drawn from Ostia, which had been
closed in 313 (Bruun 1952; RIC VII.227). It continued active through the century, though
rather spasmodically, minting at various times in all three metals but eventually mainly in
bronze. Under Magnus Maximus it was the main mint for this metal in Gaul. The status and
importance of the city were greatly enhanced when in 407 it became the seat of the praefectus
praetorio Galliarum (see under TRIER), for, although most of the “Gauls” were lost over the
following decades, the administration of what remained never returned to Trier. Its gold and
silver issues under the usurpers in 407-13, and its gold issues in the second half of the fifth
century, have already been referred to. No silver coins are known, and the last bronze coins were
ones of John (LRBC 575, with xCON). There were usually four officinae for the bronze, their
numbering invariably expressed in Latin, either as the initials P, S, T, or Q preceding the mint-
mark (e.g., PARL, SCONST) or as numerals accompanied by OF(ficina) in the field (e.g., OF
III, with CON in the exergue). There was in the past some confusion between the mint-marks
of Arles and those of Constantinople. Kent (1957a) listed the essential distinctions between
them. CON or CONST in the fourth and fifth centuries is normally Arles, and KON(ST) is so
invariably; C or CONS, and sometimes CON, are Constantinople; and at Arles the officina in-
dication is always Latin, and if it is an initial, it precedes the mint-mark, while at Constantinople
it is always a Greek numeral and follows either the mint-signature (bronze) or the reverse legend
(gold).
BARCELONA (Barcino) was a mint only during the brief usurpation of Maximus in 409—
11. Siliquae having SMB or SMBA as mint-marks were listed by Cohen, but were regarded
skeptically by some scholars till an AE 4 with SMB, followed by an uncertain A, was found in
1959 during building work in Barcelona itself (Calicé 1960). A number of further specimens in
silver and bronze, but none yet in gold, have since come to light (Balaguer 1980, and see below,
p. 219), so the existence of the mint is not in doubt. The mint-mark, where fully legible, seems
to be always SMBA.
CARTHAGE (Carthago), the capital of Roman North Africa, was briefly a mint at the end
of the third and the beginning of the fourth century from Maximian’s Moorish expedition of
MINTS 6]
296 or 297 down to the suppression of the revolt of Alexander in 311. The mint was not re-
opened till sometime in the early fifth century, when there were struck there a group of closely
related AE 4 (LRBC 576-80) whose obverses are deliberately anonymous, with such legends as.
DOMINO NOSTRO or DOMINIS NOSTRIS, but of which one reverse legend reads CARTA-
GINE. They have been ascribed to varius dates ranging from 397-8 (revolt of Gildo) to the
420s (revolt of Boniface) or even to the early Vandal period, and there is at present no decisive
evidence on the matter (below, p. 224). There was a substantial coinage at Carthage in the Vandal
period, but it was limited to silver and copper, with apparently no gold (MEC I.17-23, with full
references).
CONSTANTINOPLE, as the Greek city of Byzantium was renamed by Constantine the
Great, grew with remarkable rapidity into what its creator intended that it should become,
the effective capital of the Eastern half of the Empire (Dagron 1974). This was most strongly
the case from the 390s onward, for while most fourth-century emperors were active soldiers and
could only be resident there for short periods, Arcadius and his successors during the fifth and
sixth centuries rarely left the city even when, as with Marcian and Leo, they had made their
earlier careers in the army. The mint output of Constantinople was enormous in all metals, and
from the death of Theodosius I onward it had a virtual monopoly on the striking of gold and
silver in the East. Thessalonica was the only other Eastern mint to strike in these metals, and its
output in them was occasional and on an altogether smaller scale.
The standard mint-mark of Constantinople was CON or CONS, linked after 368, in the
case of gold, with OB as CONOB. Since Arles had been renamed Constantina by Constantine
the Great in 328, there has sometimes been confusion between the products of the two mints
(see ARLES). On two issues COMOB replaces CONOB. One is the solidus coinage of 392-5 in
the names of Theodosius I and Arcadius, with Honorius added in 393, which also has SM in the
field. The interpretation of this combination has given rise to much discussion, for Pearce fol-
lowed Elmer (1930) in reading SM as the mint-mark of Sirmium and attributed the coins to this
mint. They in fact belong to Constantinople and the SM, unusual on coins of Eastern mints,
may have been intended to emphasize the legitimacy of the coins as against those of Eugenius
(cf. below, p. 119). The other coins with COMOB are most of Theodosius II’s IMP XXXXII
solidi. This is an aberration for which various explanations have been proposed, but even if the
coins were struck outside Constantinople, as some scholars have argued, there can be no doubt
that it was there that the dies were made (below, p. 147). In the period of this volume, there
were ten officinae for the solidi (A—I) and initially five for the bronze (A—€), but under Theo-
dosius II officina numerals ceased to be used on the latter. They at no time appear on gold
multiples or fractions or on silver coin. Between 383 and 392 there was a tendency to allocate
specific officinae to coins struck in the names of particular rulers. On the AE 2 of Arcadius’ First
Coinage with Gloria Romanorum, for example, Officinae A and B were reserved for Theodosius
I, Officina T for Arcadius (5-9), and Officina A for Valentinian II.
The mints of Constantinople, Rome, and Ravenna are the only ones about whose topo-
graphical location we know anything. The Notitia Dignitatum places the moneta, meaning the
moneta publica, for bronze, in the Twelfth Region of the city (Seeck 1876, 239), that is, in its
southern quarter near the Golden Gate. The mint for gold was presumably in the Great Palace,
in the extreme east of the city. This at least is where “The Old Mint” (| madata yaoayr) is
described as being by the De Ceremoniis and where it still was in 1185, when Choniates refers to
its looting in the uprising against Andronicus I.
62 MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
CYZICUS (Kyzikos), an important city in ancient times (Hasluck 1910), is today represented
by the ruins covering an extensive area between Erdek and Bandirma on the isthmus connecting
the peninsula of Kapidagi with the southern shore of the Sea of Marmara. In the fourth century
it was the capital of the diocese of Asia, and a casual reference by the historian Sozomen (Hist.
eccles. V.15), referring to the time of Julian, implies that the employees of the imperial textile
factory and the mint made up a high proportion of the population. The pattern of its output
was very close to those of Nicomedia and Heraclea, and the three must often have received
identical minting instructions, but minting at Cyzicus seems to have been more irregular than
that of Nicomedia and, after the revolt of Procopius, who held the city briefly in 365—6, was
limited to bronze. Its coinage continued down to Leo I and perhaps into the reign of Zeno, for
like Nicomedia it became an important mint for copper in the early Byzantine period, from
Anastasius I to Heraclius. The mint-mark in the late fourth and early fifth centuries was SMK,
followed by an officina numeral (A, B, I, A), but it was changed to CVZ without distinction of
officinae on the last coinage of Theodosius II and continued as CVZ or KVZ under Marcian,
Leo, and Zeno.
HERACLEA, sometimes called Heraclea Thracica to distinguish it from other places of the
same name, is the modern Eregli, on the north coast of the Sea of Marmara 80 km west of
Istanbul. It is the ancient Perinthus, renamed Heraclea by Diocletian in ca. 285 in honor of his
colleague Maximian (Maximianus Herculius). As a result of Diocletian’s provincial reorganiza-
tion, it became the chief residence of the governor of Thrace, but with the establishment of
Constantinople in the same province its importance, never great, vanished completely. Although
it remained a mint throughout the fourth century and most of the fifth, its output was small
and its survival, as Kent has remarked, “testifies to the inertia of the governmental machine
rather than to [its] essential usefulness” (RJC VIII.426). It rarely, and never in the period cov-
ered by this volume, struck anything other than bronze. The mint-mark, from 364 up to the
close of minting under Leo I, was SMH normally followed by an officina numeral, normally still
four in the early years of Arcadius but after 392 only two. Since an H 1s difficult to distinguish
from an N, making coins of Heraclea easily confused with ones of Nicomedia, officinae [and A
of Heraclea in the 380s may not really have existed.
LYON (Lugdunum), founded as a Roman colony in 43 B.c., at the junction of the Rhéne
and the Saéne, was the greatest city of Roman Gaul (Wuilleumier 1953). Augustus opened a
mint there in ca. 15 B.c., and for nearly half a century it was the main imperial mint for gold
and silver, only being closed under Caligula in a.p. 41. A new mint, antedating the reforms of
Diocletian, was set up under Aurelian, and its coinage from 258 to 413 is the subject of a massive
and authoritative monograph in six volumes by Pierre Bastien. The last of these (Bastien 1987a)
covers the period 363 to 413. The presence of emperors in Gaul during most of this half-century
accounts for its large output in all three metals, more especially in silver and bronze, but Hon-
orius never visited the province, and the mint of Lyon came to an end in the early fifth century
(cf. Bastien 1985b). After a first closure in or soon after 395, it was reopened under the usurper
Constantine IIT, and minted in his name and that of Jovinus over the years 407-13, but only in
gold and silver. There are also some rare AE 4 of Honorius that were struck there either in 41],
in the few months between the reigns of the two usurpers, or briefly in and after 413. The basic
mint-marks (Bastien 1987a, 124 ff) are LVG or LD. The first is sometimes linked with SM
(SMLVG) or with PS (LVGPS), or with an officina initial (PLVG, SLVG). The second was initially
MINTS 63
accompanied by COM or COMOB in the exergue but under Constantine III and Jovinus the
LD is in the exergue and is linked with SM or PS (SMLD or SMLDV, LDPS, more oddly LDPV).
MILAN (Mediolanum), the greatest city in northern Italy and at some periods in the fourth
century the effective capital of the Western emperors, was briefly a mint in the 260s and 270s
and again for two longer periods in the fourth and fifth centuries, 353 to 402/4 and ca. 452 to
ca. 500, with occasional minting in the city between the two latter periods. There is an excellent
sketch of the history of the mint by Laffranchi (1953) and a detailed study of its activity in the
fourth and fifth centuries by Ulrich-Bansa (1949), the latter work being in fact a survey of the
whole minting pattern of the West during the periods it covers. A valuable survey of its minting
role in the late fourth century is provided by Depeyrot (1984). The gold coinage of the second
half of the fifth century is covered in detail by Lacam (1983) and the end of Milanese minting
by Hahn (1984a).
Milan in the fourth and fifth centuries was not a moneta publica—it is not listed in the Notitia
Dignitatum—and its coinage was limited in principle to gold and silver, with no bronze. The mint
was apparently opened during the prolonged residence of Constantius II at Milan in 352/3, in
the final phase of the suppression of the revolt of Magnentius, but its early products were limited
to special issues in gold of extreme rarity (RIC VIII.233). It was spasmodically active during the
next two decades and more regularly from 379 onward, the dies being apparently produced by
die-sinkers from Aquileia. The early mint-marks SMMED or MED were replaced by MDOB on
the gold after 368 and this in turn by COM, MD/COM, and MD/COMOB, and by MDPS or MD
on the silver. In the second half of the fifth century, MD is sometimes absent, and the mint
attribution of such solidi, and of the tremisses with COMOB only, have to be based on consid-
erations of style, as have those of earlier solidi with COM only. The mint remained active down
to 404, when it issued silver medallions, celebrating in the names of Honorius and Arcadius the
temporary triumph of Stilicho over Alaric in 403/4, and gold multiples of 41% solidi; they are
counterparts to those struck on the occasion of Honorius’ “triumph” at Rome in 404. But al-
ready in 402 the emperor, no longer feeling himself safe at Milan, had transferred his court and
capital to Ravenna, which in consequence replaced Milan as the main gold mint in the West. It
seems likely that after an overlap in 402—4, when Milan and Ravenna were both minting, Milan
ceased in 404 to mint on a continuous basis.
There followed a half-century of virtual inactivity, and Ulrich-Bansa, following Laffranchi,
believed in 1949 that the mint was effectively closed over the whole period 404—52 (Ulrich-Bansa
1949, 172 and note 15). The appearance in 1950 in a London auction room of a Milanese solidus
of John (Ulrich-Bansa 1976, 280-1), and the presence of four Milanese coins of Valentinian III
in the Comiso hoard of the early 430s (below, p. 282), shows that this was not so, and we must
in fact assume that minting occasionally occurred in the intervening years on visits of the em-
peror and his comitatus to the city. But only in the last years of Valentinian III, probably in 452
after the invasion of Attila, did a new phase of continuous activity begin that lasted till almost
the end of the century. The solidi and rare half-siliquae bear the mint-mark MD; the tremisses.
have only COM or COMOB but are identifiable by the form of the wreath and after ca. 480 by
the close resemblance of the imperial bust on them to those of the half-siliquae, the same obverse
dies being sometimes employed for the two denominations. The last coins were struck by Theo-
deric in the name of Anastasius, the mint-mark on the solidi sometimes having the form of a
monogram of IMD placed at the end of the reverse legend instead of an MD in the field. In the
late 450s, quite exceptionally, the mint departed from custom in striking copper coins of Major-
64 MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
ian (457-61) with the mint-mark MD (883).
NICOMEDIA, now Izmit at the easternmost point of the Sea of Marmara, took its name
from its founder, King Nicomedes I of Bithynia in ca. 264 B.c. It briefly served as an imperial
capital in the time of the Tetrarchy and under Licinius till in the 420s it was displaced by Con-
stantinople. As the capital of the diocese of Pontus, which included all northern Asia Minor, it
was an important mint throughout the fourth century. Gold and silver were still being struck
there as late as the 370s, but in the period covered by this volume it was minting only in bronze.
The coinage continued into the reign of Leo I and probably also under Zeno, for although no
Nicomedian coins of his have been identified, the city was a major Byzantine mint for copper
from Anastasius I down to the reign of Heraclius. The regular mint-mark was SMN, followed
by an officina numeral, down to the reign of Theodosius I], in whose last years it was replaced
by NIC without officina numeral. This remained standard—NICO occasionally occurs—for the
rest of the century. There were four officinae (A, B, I’, A) in use down to the reign of Arcadius,
with a tendency for specific officinae to mint in the names of particular rulers, but from the
early fifth century onward only one (A) is found. Coins of Nicomedia (SMN) and Heraclea
(SMH) are easily confused with one another, especially with badly preserved specimens.
RAVENNA, situated in marshy country south of the Po delta and in ancient times having
direct access to the sea through its port of Classis, was under the Principate and through the
fourth century a place of rather minor importance. It owes its prominence in late Roman and
Byzantine times to the action of Honorius in taking refuge there in 402, for its marshes made it
almost inaccessible to attack by land and, if such an attack proved successful, there was always
the possibility of escaping by sea. We do not know the exact date of the move. Honorius’ last
piece of legislation from Milan, where he had resided almost continuously since his accession, is
dated 10 September 401, and his first one dated from Ravenna is of 6 December 402 (Seeck
1919, 304). Alaric had in the meanwhile invaded Italy. He entered the country in November
401, and Honorius was with difficulty persuaded that he could safely remain in Milan (Bury
1923, 1.160—1). He was apparently still there when Stilicho defeated Alaric at Pollentia on Easter
Day (6 April), but the victory was not decisive and although Alaric, after negotiations, was per-
suaded to leave Italy, he remained in its proximity and a threat for the future. It was in these
circumstances that Honorius decided on the move to Ravenna, apparently in the late summer
or autumn of 402. His legislation shows that he was there continuously through 403, but he had
perhaps not yet decided to make it his main place of residence for he spent much of 404 in
Rome. By 4 February 405, however, he was back in Ravenna, which became his permanent
residence for the future. The marshy environs of the city, as Sidonius was to underline in the
460s, might be highly unattractive (Bury 1923, I.261), but Honorius must have preceded Placi-
dia in beginning to erect the buildings that were to allow it to replace Milan as the capital of the
West (Deichmann 1969-76).
The transfer of minting from Milan to Ravenna must have begun by 403, for there are
semisses and miliarenses in the names of Arcadius and Honorius with the RV mint-mark which
are dated VOT X MVLT XX, and undated solidi and tremisses may have started as early as 402.
But since Milan took part in Honorius’ celebratory coinages of 404, it seems likely that it was
only from late 404 that Ravenna really began to replace Milan as the major mint for gold in
Italy. The coinage of the mint has been summarized by a number of scholars, most fully if
somewhat unimaginatively by Maull (1961) (to 756) and most usefully, for the fifth century, by
MINTS 65
Panvini (1978a; but cf. also Panvini 1978b and Ercolani 1976). In addition to gold, it minted
occasionally in silver but, prior to the Ostrogothic period, only twice in bronze. The one certain
issue consists of some rare AE of Majorian with the mint-mark RV. This can be compared with
the same ruler’s exceptional AE of Milan and must represent a coinage specially undertaken for
some purpose of which we are ignorant (below, p. 252). The other probable attribution of AE to
Ravenna occurred under Honorius, where it seems likely that coins having SM in the field but
no further mint-mark may have been struck exceptionally by Ravenna to fill a temporary gap
and as models for use elsewhere (below, pp. 194-5). The normal mint-mark of Ravenna is RV
in the field, combined with COMOB or COM—exceptionally CONOB or COB—on the gold. It
was normally RVPS on siliquae, RV on halves.
The localization of the mint has occasioned some discussion (cf. Panvini 1978b, 305-7; Berti
1976, 5—6, 87; fullest in DOC III.93—4). There is a reference in a papyrus of 552 to a notary
who had his office “ad Monitam auri in porticum Sacri Palatii” (Marini 1805, 185, no. 120, with
note on p. 351), which is where we should expect such a mint to be situated. This would have
been in the palace complex in the eastern part of the city which included the church of San
Apollinare Nuovo and the neighboring Calchi, a building of the late Byzantine period tradition-
ally known as the Palace of Theoderic and occupying part of the site of the latter. It is described
as Moneta aurea in an undated account of building activities of Odovacar and Theoderic (cited
in MGH, Script. rer. Lang. 267 note 2) and was still a landmark in the twelfth century, being
referred to in documents of 1154 (Moneta), 1184 (Moneta aurea), and 1188 (domus Monetae) (Fan-
tuzzi 1801—4, VI.248, 244, 245). The other and later mint, presumably erected in the Ostro-
gothic period or immediately after the Byzantine reconquest when Ravenna first became a reg-
ular mint for copper, was in the northwestern quarter of the city, north of San Vitale and close
to Santa Croce and the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia (see map in Rasponi 1924, after p. 116). Its
position is known to us from the local historian Agnellus, who wrote in the second quarter of
the ninth century. When recording the fact that two archbishops of Ravenna had previously
been abbots of San Apollinare, he notes (Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis, cc. 115, 164, in
MGH, Script. rer. Lang. 353, 383) that this monastery was “non longe a posterula Ovilionis in
loco qui vocatur Moneta publica” and “non longe ab ecclesia sancte redemptricis Crucis ad Mo-
netam veterem,” his use of the term vetus being a consequence of the fact that Ravenna was no
longer a mint at the time he was writing.
ROME was in the fourth and fifth centuries no more than an occasional imperial residence,
however greatly emperors, on their occasional visits, might be impressed by its size and magnif-
icence and by the continuity with the Roman Republic and early Empire represented by its
monuments. Although gold and silver coins exist for most emperors, its output of gold in the
fifth century was normally surpassed by those of Milan and Ravenna, and its output of silver
was spasmodic. In bronze, on the other hand, it became the major mint and for many periods
after 402 the only active mint in the West. After Anthemius, however, there is a virtual gap down
to the creation of the large follis of Zeno and the semi-autonomous folles and half-folles of the
Ostrogothic period. Features of the mint are its independence with regard to types, which often
do not correspond to ones struck elsewhere, and the occasional striking of such large medallions
of gold and silver as the 24-siliqua silver multiple of Priscus Attalus (below, p. 223) and the 12-
solidus multiple of Severus III (below, p. 253). As with Ravenna, the position in the city of the
late Roman mint is known to us. The mid-fourth-century document entitled Notitia Regionum
Urbis XIV, and its derivative the Notitia Curiosum Urbis Romae, locate it in the Third District, south
66 MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
of the Forum and in the neighborhood of the Colosseum (Jordan 1871, I1.115—16, 544), thus
corresponding to the region between the churches of San Clemente and SS. Pietro e Marcellino
where were found in the sixteenth century the inscriptions of a.p. 115 that enumerate the per-
sonnel of the mint in Flavian times (above, p. 51).
The normal mint-mark on gold coins of Rome in the second half of the fourth century was
RM or R, though SMR was sometimes used up to the 370s, and an exceptional ROMA occurs
on a gold multiple of Valens of the later 370s (RIC 122/26) and ROMOB is used on a rare issue
of solidi probably struck on the occasion of Theodosius’ visit to Rome in 389 (RIC 132/60-1). In
the first half of the fifth century, the mint-mark is normally RM in the field with COM (on
tremisses: 727) or COMOB (on solidi and semisses: e.g., 723-6) in the exergue, but in the
second half of the fifth century the RM could be omitted under Glycerius, and the attributions
of such solidi, as of tremisses once the Victory on these had been replaced by a cross in wreath,
have to be based on style. On some solidi of Anthemius, the RM is conflated with COMOB as
CORMOB (917), like the COMDOB (M and D ligatured) on a few coins of Milan. The normal
mint-mark on the much rarer silver coins of the second half of the fourth century was R. In the
fifth century it is RMPS (e.g., 270, 832). This is the mark on the great silver multiples of Priscus
Attalus referred to above, but the siliquae of the same ruler have a simple PST on the exergue
(C 11) and are attributed to Rome partly on grounds of style, partly because this was the only
mint effectively at his disposal. CM (for Caput Mundi) appears on a half-siliqua of Julius Nepos.
The mint-mark for AE was for long a simple R followed by an officina initial or numeral,
but for some years after 402 it was SMROM (or SMR) with OFF and an officina initial (P, S, T,
Q, €) in the field (728-30). Under John and Valentinian III, it was again RM, but without an
indication of officina. After Anthemius no Roman AE in the names of Western emperors is
known at all, and although some of the Italian nummi of Zeno may have been minted in the city,
there is nothing on them to show this. The forty-nummus piece of Zeno (689) is without mint-
mark, but the SC in the field is sufficient mint identification, an identification confirmed by the
IIII below the bust, if this is an officina numeral, as most scholars believe it to be. The apparently
eccentric use of officina initials of the early fifth century went back to the period of Julian, when
there had been six officinae that had had to be designated P (prima), B, T (tertia), Q (quarta), €
and S (sexta), the Greek numerals for 2 (B) and 5 (€) having to be used because of the double
significance of S (secunda/sexta) and Q (quarta/quinta). The number of officinae fell to five in the
380s, but it was not till after 402 that B was replaced by S. The Greek € was still retained for 5
and continued to be used for it in the Ostrogothic period.
*
SIRMIUM, the modern Mitrovica on the River Sava some 40 miles southeast of Belgrade,
was in Roman times the capital of the province of Lower Pannonia. Its strategic position made
it a frequent imperial residence; it was there that Gratian proclaimed Theodosius in 379. It was
an important mint during much of the fourth century, but coins with mint-marks including the
element SIR (SIRM, SIROB, etc.) came to an end soon after Theodosius’ accession. The prob-
able date of its closure was 382, after Flavius Saturninus, a lucky survivor of Adrianople and
magister militum in Thrace, agreed on Theodosius’ behalf to the settlement of the Goths in Moesia
and Thrace, for this drastically reduced the importance of the city by cutting off its communi-
cations with the south and east and leaving it exposed to further barbarian assaults. Pearce (in
RIC 1X.157, 160-2) followed Elmer (1930; 1936, 46—8) in supposing that it was reopened in
393—5, with Sirmium serving as a base from which Theodosius organized his campaign against
Eugenius, and the S M on the Eastern solidi of these years, struck in the names of Theodosius,
MINTS 67
Arcadius, and Honorius, standing for Sirmium. But there is no evidence or likelihood of Sir-
mium having played any part in the campaign against Eugenius, and to attribute the coins to
Sirmium would leave Constantinople with no coins for these years despite Theodosius having
been almost continuously resident in the city. Goodacre (1938) and Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 156—9;
1966) consequently interpreted S M as Sacra Moneta and distributed the coins between Constan-
tinople and Thessalonica, an attribution altogether more probable and the one adopted here
(pp. 119-20). The presence of S M in the reverse field is admittedly unusual on Eastern solidi,
as is COMOB, but the latter was a newly devised extension of COM (above, pp. 53—4) and S M
would emphasize the official and “sacred” character of the coins as against the illegitimacy of
those of Eugenius. S M also appears in the field of some AE 3 of Honorius, again apparently
standing for Sacra Moneta but implying on this occasion the mint of Ravenna (below, pp. 194-5).
SISCIA, the modern Sisak on the River Sava in northern Croatia (Yugoslavia), 45 km south
southeast of Zagreb, was the capital of Upper Pannonia and in the fourth century an important
mint, mainly for striking bronze. It only barely enters the period covered in this volume, but
was still open in the first years of Arcadius’ nominal reign, being apparently closed ca. 387
(Alféldi 1922, 1923a) and in any event before the accession of Honorius. Arcadius’ early coins
of the mint (66-7) will have been struck by Valentinian II. The mint-mark of Siscia always
includes the element SIS(C); there were two officinae for the bronze. It has been argued (LRBC,
p. 69) that some later AE 3 of Honorius with the letters SM in the field were minted at a re-
opened Siscia, the SM standing for Sisciana Moneta, a term used in the Notitia Dignitatum, but the
customary Sacra Moneta seems more likely and the coins better attributed to Ravenna, as indi-
cated above.
THESSALONICA, the modern Thessaloniki, was in late Antiquity the largest and wealthi-
est city in the Aegean area and one of the most important in the Eastern Empire, though rank-
ing well after Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. It had been an imperial capital in the
time of Galerius and was in the fourth and fifth centuries the seat of the praetorian prefect of
Illyricum, initially with jurisdiction over the dioceses of Illyricum, Dacia, and Macedonia, so that
it covered the center and west of the Balkan Peninsula and Greece, from the Danube in the
north to Crete in the south, omitting only the eastern strip, the diocese of Thrace between the
Danube and the Sea of Marmara, which formed part of the prefecture of the East. The partition
arrangement between Valentinian I and Valens had left it, in 364, in the Western half of the
Empire. Gratian conferred it on Valentinian II, and although Theodosius occupied part of it
(including Thessalonica) in 383, he did so on behalf of Valentinian, who was menaced by Mag-
nus Maximus, and relinquished it in 384. In 388, as a consequence of the provincial reorgani-
zation that followed the downfall of Maximus, Theodosius took it over as part of the “Eastern”
Empire, and this arrangement persisted in the future, despite Stilicho’s hopes of reverting to
the arrangement of Valentinian I and reannexing it to the West. After the breach of the Danu-
bian frontier, its northern province fell more and more under Germanic control, and the whole
area, as far south as the Morea, was repeatedly devastated by Ostrogothic or Hunnic raids.
Thessalonica was a mint throughout the fourth and fifth centuries, striking gold, silver, and
bronze, though often sporadically and sometimes exercising considerable independence in its
choice of types or reproductions of standard designs. The latter quality is most conspicuously
displayed in the varieties of breastplate- and shield-ornaments of the imperial bust on solidi
68 MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
struck in the early years of the fifth century (223, 242, 298, 756, 767, 769-70; details in Table
41), though since the type had been only recently introduced at Constantinople, the Thessalon-
ican departures from the “norm” would probably have appeared less disconcerting to contem-
porary users than they do to the modern numismatist. Two special studies of the mint cover the
fifth and sixth centuries (Metcalf 1984, 1988); the second includes a corpus of the gold coins
(but not including those here) and lists relevant hoards and miscellaneous finds. Whether or not
there was a moneta aun there in the fifth century has already been discussed, the conclusion
being that, despite the frequent issues of gold, there was not.
The normal mint-mark on the bronze, and on the much rarer silver (cf. Hahn 1990), was
TES, with occasionally SMTES or TE, the letters in the latter case separated by a Christogram.
There were initially five officinae for the bronze coinage, but after 361 the number was reduced
to four. During Arcadius’ childhood the officinae were specialized according to emperor, coins
in Arcadius’ name being limited to the third officina (e.g., 57-60, 63-5), while Valentinian II
had the first and Theodosius the second and fourth. There was a gap in the minting of bronze
between 392 and 408, after which all coins in this metal are of officina A. Coins of Marcian often
have THES, the first letter a form of cursive T (LRBC — ; Adelson and Kustas 1962, 10) and
under Leo I the mint-mark was THES or THS, and THS under Zeno, but few bronze coins
were struck in the second half of the century.
The evolution of mint-marks on the gold, or rather on solidi for only these were struck, is
a complex one, reflecting the ambiguous status of a mint balanced between East and West. Prior
to 368 the mint-mark was normally TES, sometimes SMTES or T and E separated by a Chris-
togram, but after 368 it was normally TESOB, that is, OB added to the traditional mint-mark
in the customary Western fashion. In 383 it changed to COM, still Western, without letters in
the field, and mint identification has to be made on grounds of style. This is the mark on the
earliest Thessalonican solidi of Arcadius (61) and the companion pieces in the names of Valen-
tinian II, Theodosius, and Gratian. In 392 COM was replaced by an equally simple COMOB,
the mint being still identified by style and COMOB continuing to 402. In the period 402-8 it
was replaced by TESOB, the TES being on some dies recut over the COM (771), and the OB is
occasionally separated from the TES by a pellet. TESOB is regular on later coins of Theodosius
II, but under Marcian it was replaced by THSOB, the occasional appearance of TESOB on some
of his solidi (T 1) being a consequence of the reuse of dies carried over from Theodosius’ reign.
THSOB continued under Leo I (553-9), and as at Constantinople the use of such a mint-mark,
appropriate only for gold, occurs also on silver coins (505, 669). But by the 480s any mark other
than CONOB must have seemed a disconcerting anomaly in the East, and it was presumably a
wish to bring the coins of Thessalonica into line with those of the capital that explains why the
mint eventually adopted CONOB and an officina numeral, only placing a T between the CCC
and the officina numeral to distinguish its products (664-5; cf. below, p. 184). Finally even this,
with its accompanying officina numeral, seems to have been thought superfluous, and Thessa-
lonican solidi of the last years of Zeno’s reign and those of his two successors are distinguished
from those of Constantinople simply by having two stars in the field instead of one.
TRIER (Lat. Civitas or Augusta Treverorum, Treveri; Fr. Tréves), the chief Roman city of
the lower Rhineland, lay sufficiently far up the Moselle to be thought secure from surprise
attacks from beyond the Rhine. Established by Diocletian as the capital of the newly formed
province of Belgica Secunda, it became in a few years the seat of the praefectus praetorio Galliarum,
with a huge staff responsible for the administration of the Gauls, Britain, and Spain, that is, of
COUNTERFEITS AND SUPPLEMENTARY COINAGES 69
all the West save Italy and Africa. Its history in Antiquity is adequately dealt with by Wightman
(1970; cf. also 1985). By the end of the fourth century, increasing dangers from beyond the
frontier seemed too great a threat, and the seat of the praetorian prefect was eventually trans-
ferred to Arles. The precise date when this occurred, one of considerable importance for the
coinage of the time, has been much discussed, with occasions as early as 395, 397, or 398 put
forward by various scholars, but it now seems certain that it was in 407 that the praetorian
prefect evacuated the city with his staff to escape the great German invasion and established
himself at Arles (Chastagnol 1973; cf. Demougeot 1975, 1091-2). In the course of the next half-
century, according to Salvian, Trier was four times sacked by Germanic peoples, once presum-
ably in 407, once in 411 by the Franks, and on two unidentifiable further occasions, but some
vestiges of Roman authority still subsisted as late as the 480s in the person of a comes Arbogast,
a resident of Trier and a correspondent of Sidonius Apollinaris and Bishop Auspicius of Toul.
By the end of the century, the city had been incorporated into the expanding kingdom of Clovis.
Trier was for most of the fourth century a major mint in all three metals, though there was
relatively little bronze, especially after ca. 355. It continued to strike into the fifth century,
though only spasmodically and on a small scale. The mint-marks always incorporate the initials
TR, usually in association with SM, OB, PS, COM, etc. There were three officinae for gold, P
(prima) or C (capitalis), S (secunda), and T (tertia), and two, P and S, for bronze. A fifth officina
(€) alleged for an AE of Priscus Attalus (Voetter 1921, 411/1 = Koblitz 1928, 46, no. 2) must be
a misreading of a coin of Rome. There is a detailed study on the coinage from Valentinian I
onward by von Koblitz (1928); it gives more information on individual coins than was possible
in RIC 1X.3—34. Honorius did not initially mint at all after 395, but the mint was reopened for
striking gold and silver by Constantine III in 407-11 and continued under Jovinus and Sebastian
in 411-13. A unique siliqua in the name of Honorius with mint-mark TRMS, discovered in 1982
(Gilles 1983), may have been struck by Constantine III but is perhaps better attributed to the
interval between Constantine and Jovinus in 411. (Alleged coins of Priscus Attalus [Koblitz 1928,
46] are unconfirmed and unlikely.) There is then a gap to 423 or 425—the supposed coins of
John (423-5) are uncertain—and the last official coinage of Trier is formed by small issues of
siliquae and AE 4 in the names of Valentinian III and Theodosius II. They have been attributed
to the late 440s, but are better dated to between 425 and ca. 430 (below, pp. 150-1, 238-9), so
that the mint will have closed ca. 430 and not two decades later. The occasional subsequent
striking of pseudo-coins in silver and apparently even in lead (Gilles 1982, 11-18) can scarcely
be from a regular mint.
D. COUNTERFEITS AND SUPPLEMENTARY COINAGES
Virtually all monetary systems have to contend with the problem of counterfeits, for coined
money, which is legal tender, is by virtue of this more valuable than uncoined metal. The Roman
Empire was no exception to the rule. Many counterfeits were not merely illegal but flagrantly
dishonest. This is most obviously the case with plated gold and silver coins having a base metal
core, for their metallic value would have been far inferior to their notional one. The occasional
copies of coins, mainly solidi, for purposes of ornament would fall into the same category (cf.
Biro Sey 1968, describing such a solidus of Theodosius II’s Vot XXX class, and Zadoks-Josephus
Jitta 1953, 1987).
It is possible, however, for some kinds of privately manufactured coins that are formally
counterfeits to perform a valuable economic function, if regular coinage is for some reason in
70 MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
short supply. This is especially true of the bronze. Such coins form a respectable percentage of
hoard composition in late Roman times and would seem to have been accepted as regular coins.
There is an excellent general study of the phenomenon in Bastien (1985c), though it is mainly
concerned with the fourth century between 318 and 363. Many scholars prefer to treat such
coins as monnaie de nécessité, comparable to the token coinage of eighteenth-century England,
and not as true forgeries, especially since Roman law took a more lenient view of counterfeiting
in bronze than it did that of counterfeiting gold and silver and punished it in less savage fashion
(Grierson 1956). They differ, however, from eighteenth-century tokens, and from other similar
coinages of the early modern period, in that they actually imitate official coins and were ob-
viously intended to pass as such, while modern tokens, if sometimes identical in weight and size
with official issues, differ from these in design and thus make no formal claim to legal accepta-
bility. There was in any case a further complication in the fifth century, for the rulers of the
Germanic peoples who settled in Imperial territory came in time to assume that they had mint-
ing rights. In order to ensure the acceptability of their coins, they imitated either those in cur-
rent use or the ones they had met with on their first entry into the Empire and which in some
cases bore the name of the ruler who had authorized their settlement.
Plated gold and silver coins require no discussion. Since they date from the time and were
intended as part of the circulating medium, they are of interest to scholars, though not usually
to collectors, and the few at Dumbarton Oaks have been recorded in the catalogue (318, 876).
But where imitations are of good metal, it is not always easy to determine into what category
they fall. From 407 onward much of Gaul was in Germanic hands. Several series of gold coins
have been ascribed to the Visigoths, but in only a few cases can the attributions be considered at
all certain. The main discussions are by Reinhart (1938), Grierson (in MEC 1.44-—6), and most
recently Depeyrot (1986).
The earliest gold imitations are of Ravennate solidi of Honorius, struck probably in the
420s and distinguishable from their models by their style and lettering, most noticeably by the
absence of the long tongue of the letter G in the AVGGG formula which is very characteristic of
Ravennate solidi of this period (Kent 1974). They were succeeded by imitations of the early
Ravennate solidi of Valentinian III having a suspended crown above the emperor's head (as
844), though opinions differ as to whether there are any Ravenna originals with a crown or
whether the whole series exhibiting this feature is Visigothic (see below, p. 236). The type con-
tinued under subsequent emperors, notably in the name of Severus III and with R A substituted
for R V in the field, the later coins being of notably inferior metal. Other groups of imitations
discussed by Depeyrot are those having a Z at the end of the reverse legend—officina numerals
were not used on Western solidi—or a conspicuous pellet in the field behind the bust.
Imitative solidi and tremisses come in the fifth century mainly from Gaul. Outside it there
are Suevic imitations of Milanese solidi of Honorius and tremisses in the name of Valentinian
III of distinctive styles (MEC 1.78-—9). Also in Gaul, at the end of the century, are imitations
attributable to the Burgundians (MEC I.75-—7). One would expect comparable series of imita-
tions from the Balkans, much of which were equally settled by Germanic peoples, but the area
was in a state of constant upheaval, and only isolated coins can be attributed with confidence
to it.
Silver imitations are partly of Gallic origin, partly Vandalic. Siliquae with blundered vota
inscriptions (cf. MEC I, no. 332) or other designs already existed by the first decade of the
century, for a few occurred in the Dortmund hoard (Regling 1908, 39 and Nachtrag, 4; Albrecht
1957, 15-17), the form of their obverse busts showing their models to have been coins of Val-
COUNTERFEITS AND SUPPLEMENTARY COINAGES 71
entinian I, Valens, or Gratian. They have also come to light in graves at Heilbronn and elsewhere
(cf. Nau 1966; Alféldi 1968; Martin 1982). Two coins in the name of Honorius, given in the
catalogue (740-1) to Ravenna, are ascribed by Kent and King to the Visigoths (below, p. 206).
Small silver coins in the names of Valentinian III and Theodosius II and with the mint-mark of
Trier, which belong to the late 420s, are attributed by some scholars to Aetius or the Franks
(below, pp. 150-1, 238). There are also small silver coins bearing the name of Majorian which
have been found mainly in grave deposits between the Seine and the lower and middle Rhine;
whether they are Frankish, or were struck in the Roman enclave north of the Seine ruled in
turn by Syagrius and Aegidius down to its conquest by the Franks, is uncertain (see p. 252). The
Vandalic imitations, of which a good study exists (Morrisson and Schwartz 1982), are ones of
Ravenna siliquae and half-siliquae of Honorius. They are most easily distinguishable from their
much rarer prototypes by the die-axes being frequently 90° instead of the customary 180°. They
were also struck on thick flans rather smaller than the die-faces, so that much of the legends
and sometimes even parts of the type are off flan.
If gold and silver imitations are for the most part Germanic in origin, the opposite is true
of the bronze. Local coinages in this metal had in some parts of the Empire a long tradition
behind them. In Britain, where their history is well documented (Kent 1959b; Boon 1974), they
had begun in the first century A.D. with imitations of Claudian asses, presumably because insuf-
ficient cash had been brought to pay the troops in the recent invasion, and hoards suggest that
imitations may well have outnumbered originals in circulation. In the third century the antoni-
niani of the Gallic emperors, from Postumus through Victorinus and the Tetrici, were in turn
imitated on an enormous scale. These “barbarous radiates,” as they are termed, form a substan-
tial element in hoards, and those of normal size were probably accepted on a par with originals,
though this can scarcely have been the case with the tinier copies that were also struck. It was
formerly widely believed that they represented the fifth-century coinage of Britain after the
departure of the Romans (Sutherland 1936; Hill 1949), since specimens occur in hoards as late
as the reign of Honorius. This view is now abandoned (cf. Kent 1959b, 65-6), and it is recog-
nized that even the tiny copies called minimi and minimissimi by numismatists were contemporary
or nearly contemporary with their models. Very similar pieces, though not as minute, formed
an element in the circulating medium of north Africa as late as the fifth century (Turcan 1984,
32-4).
The same is true of the equally abundant copies of the Fel. Temp. Reparatio coinage intro-
duced in 348, more especially those of the type with a “Falling Horseman” reverse. Like the
antoninianus copies, they are often much smaller than the originals, and like them they were
formerly regarded as much later than their prototypes, belonging at least in part to the post-
Roman period (Hill 1950; full survey of the literature in Brickstock 1987, 7-26). The blundered
legends on some were read as personal names, so that Dark Age Britain was provided with such
imaginary rulers as Censeris and a second Carausius (Sutherland 1945, endorsing the names
but rejecting a fifth-century date; Kent 1957, rejecting both). As with the “barbarous radiates,”
it is now accepted that the Fel. Temp. Reparatio imitations, though still occurring in hoards of the
time of Honorius, all belong to the third quarter of the fourth century (Brickstock 1987). The
most decisive evidence was perhaps the 1956/8 excavation of the site of the Roman temple at
Brean Down in Somerset, for this showed that even the tiny minimi and minimissimi belonged at
the latest to the Valentinianic period and had ceased by Theodosian times (Boon 1961). The
imitation of these types was not confined to Britain, however, even if it was mainly characteristic
of this province (Brickstock 1987, 112-17).
72 MINTS AND MINT ACTIVITY
Valentinianic and Theodosian AE had their own imitations, especially in Britain and Gaul,
though on a smaller scale than the two series just discussed. All descriptions of the very numer-
ous hoards of the period treat a proportion of the coins as imitations, either because of their
poor designs and workmanship or because of their defective legends and mint-marks. It is of
course difficult to distinguish between originals and counterfeits, for a strong subjective element
is involved. Delmaire, who has worked extensively on these coins, admits that ones he had con-
demned before they were cleaned sometimes appeared to be originals after cleaning, and vice
versa. The same scholar has made an interesting tabulation of the proportion of presumed
imitations in ten Theodosian hoards of which detailed descriptions are available, with figures
averaging about 2% of the contents, but in one case, that of the Helchteren hoard from Lim-
burg, the figure rises to nearly 9% (Delmaire 1983, 139-42). One is accustomed to thinking of
the phenomenon as Western, but imitations were also numerous in the East. The point is under-
lined in a series of publications dealing with late fourth-century hoards from the Dobrudja
region at the mouth of the Danube (Poenaru Bordea and Barbu 1970; Poenaru Bordea 1971),
and it has long been known for Egypt (Milne 1926, 1947).
The infrequency of bronze hoards between ca. 410 and ca. 450 means that for this period
we have little evidence, and equally often have little material to help us in establishing criteria
for distinguishing between originals and imitations. To which category do some of Honorius’
cruder Urbs Roma Felix AE 3 belong (e.g., 730), or the almost equally crude AE 4 of John (822-
3)? Even after the revival of hoard evidence from Italy, Greece, and Egypt in the second half of
the fifth century we are scarcely on firmer ground, since the standard of “originals” has become
so low. So many monograms of Marcian seem defective in one way or another (cf. 494 ff) that
accuracy alone is scarcely a satisfactory criterion. Most scholars who have described hoards of
the period have written off a considerable part of the contents as imitations, and it is certainly
wiser to do this than to interpret faulty mint-marks as referring to localities where regular mint-
ing is neither documented nor probable, as for example the KOC which Adelson and Kustas
suggested might indicate the city of Cios on the Propontis (Adelson and Kustas 1962, 10-14).
Milne long ago saw that in Egypt the distinction between “genuine” and “false” must have been
meaningless to users. The coins were counters, reckoned by number without reference to either
their authenticity or their weight.
In a few parts of the Empire, there were also local coinages in lead, usually more or less
monetiform and evidently, like the bronze imitations, accepted as part of the regular currency
on a token basis. Some have been found at Trier or in the neighborhood (Kann 1980; Gilles
1982, 14, 47), though these are difficult to date and to separate from votive tokens which had
no monetary function. More certainly of the late fifth century, and having a clearly monetary
character, are the 500 lead “coins” with roughly formed pseudo-monograms of the Zeno-
Anastasian period which came to light among the great numbers of bronze nummi found in the
1950s and 1960s at a site on the south bank of the Danube just upstream from Izvoarele in the
district of Constanza (Culica 1972). Isolated lead imitations, or simple lead discs of the same
dimensions as regular nummi, occur occasionally in hoards elsewhere, for example, in Tipasa
III from North Africa (Turcan 1961, 208).
4
TYPES AND INSCRIPTIONS
A. OBVERSE AND REVERSE
The coins of the period continue the traditional differentiation between the themes of ob-
verses and reverses, the obverse ones being directly imperial in the sense that they involve a
representation of the emperor and record his name and titles, while the reverses, when “impe-
rial” at all, tend to be concerned with the imperial office rather than the personality of its holder.
They may show the emperor in a military or consular capacity or commemorate some anniver-
sary of his reign, but they are more likely to be a traditional personification of Victory, Roma, or
Constantinopolis. Occasionally obverse and reverse themes are related to each other, most no-
tably in the issues having a consular bust on the obverse and a seated representation of the
emperor in consular robes on the reverse, but they are normally independent. The same is true
of the inscriptions. Only in the case of Theodosius II’s IMPXXXXII and IMPXXXXIIII solidi
does the reverse inscription continue that on the obverses of the coins.
The normal relationship between the die-axes of obverse and reverse is a six o’clock one
(| ), as in earlier times, or something very close to this if the die-heads were not quite correctly
fitted into the cases that contained them (cf. Bastien and Huvelin 1971; Brenot 1971). In certain
mints, and notably at Milan in the third quarter of the fifth century, the die-axes were normally
twelve o’clock instead of six o’clock. Similar runs of variants had occurred from time to time in
earlier periods, and the phenomenon may have resulted from nothing more than the whim of
some particular mint master. Ulrich-Bansa toyed with the idea of its being intended to facilitate
the use of the coins as ornaments, for a twelve o’clock axis would ensure that the obverse and
reverse types would be the same way up if a coin was suspended from a necklace, but this is
scarcely possible. Bastien has noted the curious fact that at Lyon the die-axes seem to have been
indifferently six o’clock or twelve o'clock prior to 375 and again after 388, the two occurring in
virtually equal proportions, but that between 375 and 388, on the bronze of Gratian’s reform
struck 60 to the pound, the six o’clock position predominates in a proportion of almost two to
one (Bastien 1987a, 130). His suggestion is that it resulted from some change in minting tech-
nique that proved unsatisfactory, but the preference of a particular mint overseer seems more
likely.
B. OBVERSE TYPES
The obverse type of virtually all coins was an imperial bust, in military costume for emper-
ors except on consular coins and in ceremonial court attire for empresses. The coins reflect only
imperfectly the great elaboration of court ceremonial and display that was a feature of the later
Empire (Alf6ldi 1935).
73
74 TYPES AND INSCRIPTIONS
The tradition of the early Empire had been one of profile busts with characterized portrai-
ture in high relief. In the course of the fourth century, the relief became much flatter and
characterized portraiture was largely abandoned, thus enabling the same impersonal bust to be
used for any number of imperial colleagues. The reason was mainly a decline of classical rep-
resentational art, but there was probably also the feeling, well exemplified in Ammianus Mar-
cellinus’ account of the impassive deportment of Constantius II on his entry into Rome in 357
(Hist. XVI.10), that the majesty of imperial greatness should dominate the features and conceal
the weaknesses and deficiencies of individual rulers. It would in any case have been difficult for
provincial mints, whose officials would rarely if ever set eyes on the emperor, to maintain any
standard of likeness, though they would from time to time have received models from which to
work. The formal reception of a colleague’s portrait was in fact an essential part of the protocol
of collegiality (Bruun 1976), and Constantine Porphyrogenitus has preserved for us the account
left by Peter the Patrician of the ceremonial that accompanied the reception by Leo I of the
portrait of Anthemius in 467 (De ceremoniis 1.87). Copies of such portraits, once they had re-
ceived formal recognition, were then circulated to the provinces: we hear of the Prefect Cyne-
gius bringing the portrait of Maximus to Egypt once he had been recognized by Theodosius,
and a late sixth-century papyrus from the Thebaid records the reception there of the portrait
of Justin I]. These portraits were for public display, but ones of a similar character must have
been sent to the mints as well.
The three-quarter facing bust adopted for the normal solidus in the East in 395—it was a
variant of one used on the last coinage of Constantius II in the late 350s—accentuated the
absence of any personal likeness, for it made characterized portraiture virtually impossible. Pro-
file busts continued for consular solidi and multiples, for fractional gold, and for the silver and
nearly all bronze, as well as for solidi in the West down to the second half of the fifth century.
Normally the busts are turned to the right, for the reason given by Vermeule—“when sketching
a human head in profile, the natural tendency for a right-handed person is to sketch the head
turned left” (Vermeule 1956-7, 5)—and a head turned left on the die would result in a head
turned right on the coin. On consular coins and heavy miliarenses, heads are turned to the left,
but even in such cases, where non-consular busts are concerned, the drapery remains that ap-
propriate to a right profile (e.g., 163, 306). The consular and other ceremonial coins of the last
two decades of Theodosius II’s reign show him wearing a short beard, which he presumably
grew in the late 420s, and the handsome beards sometimes worn on the coins by his successors,
for example, by Leo I on his consular solidi (556-9) and some other coins (515, 548), do not
represent the emperor's actual appearance but carry on types established by Theodosius. Only
in the more conservative West, which retained the profile bust for the solidus, did some element
of portraiture persist after it had vanished in the East. Eugenius’ beard may be no more than a
reflection of his philosophical position, for like Julian he was a pagan and had been trained as a
rhetorician, but John’s beard was presumably based on reality, and the busts of several later
emperors, notably Avitus, show a clear attempt at producing a likeness (cf. Delbrueck 1933).
The same is probably true of the large bronze coin struck in Zeno’s name at Rome (689).
The three-quarter facing bust shows the emperor wearing a helmet bound with a diadem
having a circular frontal ornament, while fluttering in the left field are the tails of the ribbon
that secured it behind the head. Under Marcian the frontal ornament acquired three aigrettes,
which became its regular feature in the future. The emperor wears a breastplate and carries a
spear and a shield on which is depicted, in rough outline, a figure on horseback stabbing down-
ward at a fallen enemy, though the mint of Thessalonica tried other designs in the early fifth
OBVERSE TYPES 75
century (cf. Table 41 on p. 211). The profile bust normally shows the emperor diademed but
not helmeted, so that the details of the diadem, one of the chief insignia of imperial authority,
appear more clearly. Usually it is shown as a simple pearl-edged band, but sometimes this is
broken by large jeweled rosettes or transformed into a series of square plaques. On the profile
busts the armor is practically concealed by a military cloak (paludamentum) thrown back over the
emperor's left shoulder and fastened at his right shoulder by a circular brooch (fibula) with three
pendants. This was an important symbol of imperial office. After ecclesiastical coronations be-
came customary from the reign of Leo I onward, the cloak was placed over the emperor's shoul-
der and the fibula fastened by the patriarch of Constantinople.
Another symbol of office which was taking shape in the fifth century was the globus cruciger.
Roman emperors had frequently been shown holding an orb that represented the world they
ruled, its character being often made apparent by the sea and land on its surface being differ-
entiated by a wavy line (cf. Schramm 1958). In the fifth century it was Christianized by the
addition of a cross, symbolizing the divine authority from which the emperor derived his right
to rule. The explanation of the symbolism is given by Procopius in describing the great eques-
trian statue of Justinian in the Augusteum (De aedificiis 1.2.11), but the emblem already existed
a century earlier, a cross being first shown on the globe in one hand of the Victory on the type
of tremissis (as 251) first struck at Milan by Theodosius I in the late 380s and subsequently
appearing on that held by Theodosius II on a few of his coins from the mid-420s onward (364
ff). It also characterizes the globe held by the seated Constantinopolis on Theodosius II's solidi
of 430 and 443 (379 ff, 410 ff).
On special consular solidi, a bust of the emperor is normally shown on the obverse and his
seated figure on the reverse, though variations are possible. His costume is the rich, jewel-
encrusted consular cloak (loros). This is something we know best from seated representations of
consuls on the ivory diptychs which, in the fifth and early sixth centuries, it was fashionable for
consuls to present to their friends on the occasion of their taking up office (Delbrueck 1929). In
due course the border of this evolved into the loros that was to be a conspicuous feature of
Byzantine imperial costume for centuries to come (Albizzati 1922; Condurachi 1935; DOC
II.78—80). The traditional consular insignia were an ivory scepter (scipio) topped with an eagle,
which went back to Republican days, and the mappa, a roll of cloth which was either raised in
the consul’s right hand or thrown into the arena to start the games. It reputedly went back to
Nero, who, according to a tradition preserved by Cassiodorus, was at his dinner when the games
were due to start and used his table napkin for the purpose. On consular coins of the fifth
century, the mappa is still regularly shown—it was to evolve into the Byzantine akakia, though
other elements were also involved (DOC I1.86—7)—but the scipio has been replaced by a cross-
scepter (e.g., 347, 391). The scipio, however, was to have a revival in the sixth century, for
example, on coins of Tiberius II, and appears sporadically on coins down to the reign of Philip-
picus (711-13), when it was used for the last time (DOC II, pl. x_v, 1-15). When the emperor is
shown seated as consul, he sometimes holds an object probably best identified as a scroll, a
traditional symbol of the rector orbis as civilian lawgiver (Panvini 1965), but on the large six-
solidus medallions, he is shown frontally in a chariot drawn by six horses scattering largess to
the crowd. Seated consuls on solidi are usually shown nimbate (e.g., 347, 374-6, 391, 556-9),
as had been the case in the late fourth century (cf. RIC IX, pls. vi.9, x.8, xi.4, etc.).
The representations of empresses require little comment. The augustae of the Theodosian
house are reported by contemporaries to have been exceptionally beautiful, a reputation con-
firmed by the profile busts of Eudoxia, Pulcheria, and Eudocia on their coins. It may also be
76 TYPES AND INSCRIPTIONS
that the firm jaw and sharp features attributed to Verina (593-8) do faithfully reflect the decisive
character of this ambitious woman. It is something of a paradox that while emperors in the East
are all shown facing on their solidi and the augustae in profile, in the West it is the emperors
who are in profile and the most remarkable representation of an empress, that of Licinia Eu-
doxia, is a facing one (870). This coin is also exceptional in its depiction of the pinnacled crown
with the shoulder-length prependulia that were to be a feature of the crowns of empresses in
the future (cf. DOC I1.82—4, III.128, 130). The diadems of empresses differ from those of
emperors in having three or occasionally four “tails” instead of only two, presumably a conse-
quence of their being in some way more elaborately made. When Verina is shown on small AE
of Leo I (582-6), she holds a scepter transversely across her body.
The diadem was in general a sufficient symbol of rulership, but in a few cases imperial busts
have above them a Manus Dei, notionally emerging from a cloud, holding a crown above the
sovereign ruler’s head. Its use on coinage in the fifth and sixth centuries, especially on the coins
of empresses in the East, has been studied by MaclIsaac (1975). It was not a pagan iconographic
theme, but derives from the right hand of God (Dextera Det) as a symbol of divine power or
providence frequently alluded to in the Old Testament (e.g., Pss. 18:35, 98:2, 118:15—-16, 138:7)
and shown, for example, in the mid-third-century murals of the synagogue at Dura-Europos.
Its first numismatic appearance is on the 36-solidus medallion of Constantius II at Vienna
(Gnecchi 1912, pl. 12), but its earliest extensive use came fifty years later, in 383, on the aes
accession coinage of Arcadius (5 ff) that was issued only shortly after Theodosius’ own baptism
(380). Its employment, however, was limited to only one denomination, albeit one which, if not
the most important, would have circulated the most widely and familiarized coin users with the
symbol throughout the Eastern half of the Empire.
The future use of a Manus Dei and crown was in fact virtually confined to the East, and
there to empresses. It was not used for the infant Honorius, nor for the empress Flaccilla, but
Arcadius or his advisers, perhaps remembering back to his own earliest coinage, introduced it
on all denominations of the coins of Eudoxia (273-94) when she was created augusta in 400.
From then onward it was normal for empresses, though limited to their solidi: Pulcheria (436—
43), Eudocia (454-9), Verina (593-4), and Zenonis (PCR III.1641), but not, for reasons un-
known, Ariadne. (It is also alleged to occur on a nummus [LRBC 2287] of Zenonis.) It likewise
appears on Eastern solidi struck in the names of Galla Placidia (824, 834) and Licinia Eudoxia
(872). But only Galla Placidia and Honoria are shown with it on their Western coins (825-8,
866), and it does not appear on any Western solidi of Licinia Eudoxia or Euphemia (870, 933-
4). For emperors it was much more unusual. It appeared on no further coins of Eastern emper-
ors at all, unless perhaps on a nummus of Basiliscus (LRBC 2285, but ? correctly read) and on
only one coin of Honorius, the Ravenna Victory solidus (742) showing the standing emperor
with his foot on a recumbent lion, and here it is not above his head on the obverse but ostenta-
tiously replaces the pagan Victory crowning the standing emperor on the reverse. Under Val-
entinian III, however, it appeared on some rare issues of 425, apparently under the influence
of its use on Galla Placidia’s solidi. A Manus Det and crown appear on a brief issue of Valentinian’s
solidi from Ravenna—usually, and especially in its many imitations in Gaul, there is a crown only
(844; cf. below, p. 236)—and also on siliqua issues of Trier in the names of both Valentinian and
Theodosius (below, pp. 150, 238), their presence in the latter cases being an important consid-
eration in dating the coins.
OBVERSE INSCRIPTIONS 77
C. OBVERSE INSCRIPTIONS
The normal obverse inscription consists of the name of the ruler preceded by D N (for
Dominus Noster) and followed by P F (for pius felix) or PP (for perpetuus) AVG (for augustus).
Empresses usually have no more than their names preceded by AEL (for Aelia) and followed by
AVG(usta). A caesar will be described as NOB(ilissimus) CAES(ar), or simply C. There was a
difference in practice between East and West with regard to the name, Western mints usually
inserting a first name (Priscus Attalus, Galla Placidia, Licinia Eudoxia, Petronius Maximus, etc.),
while Eastern mints omitted them. The practice went back to Magnus Maximus, and its revival
is hard to explain, though it may have owed something to the fact that most of the Western
emperors after 455 were members of the nobility. It was dropped for Avitus, who indeed be-
longed to the aristocracy but to that of Gaul, and for Glycerius, of whose family we know nothing
and who may have been of low birth. A failure to realize that the distinction is Eastern/Western
has led in the past to some mistaken attributions, for coins of Valentinian III struck at Constan-
tinople omit PLA(cidus) and those of Licinia Eudoxia omit LICINIA, styling her AELIA in-
stead.
The elements in the ttle require littke comment. Dominus had been avoided as a formal title
in the early Empire, since the most obvious complement to it was servus, though it was widely
used as a courtesy title throughout society. In the form D N, it was spasmodically used on coins.
of the Constantinian period, and by the end of the fourth century its presence was normal (Callu
1985). Its omission by Priscus Attalus is so unusual that one should probably interpret it as a
conscious repudiation of a title whose employment was not appreciated by old-fashioned sena-
tors. Aelia was initially not a title but the personal name of Theodosius I’s first wife, Empress
Aelia Flaccilla. Later empresses are not so called in inscriptions and literary references, and its
use for them on coins resulted from the mint officials in the East taking Flaccilla’s coins as their
model. Epithets like pius felix or perpetuus were customary. Kent (1987a, ix) has noted that the
formula pius felix is not spelled out on coins after the mid-fourth century, and suggests that since
emperors with such short names as Valens, Avitus, Leo, and Zeno are described as perpetuus the
P of PF, on fifth-century coins, should be construed as perpetuus rather than pius. Such a usage
would not be linguistically correct, however, for perpetuus is not a separate appellation but qual-
ifies augustus—it is the equivalent of semper in the semper augustus of the large folles of Zeno
(689)—and pius felix continues in other contexts, being used of Justinian, for example, in the
preface to the Institutes. The PERPF which does sometimes occur, for example, on 670-1, Rav-
ennate solidi of Zeno, should be construed as perpetuus pius felix, this being quite normal in
documents. A notable feature of the legends of the period is the disappearance of the old epi-
thets recording the military successes of the emperors (Dacicus, Germanicus, etc.), though these
were still adopted and used in legal documents. Probably, quite apart from the fact that over
half a century was occupied by the reigns of four singularly unwarlike emperors—Arcadius,
Honorius, Theodosius II, and Valentinian II[[—it was felt that they were subsumed into the
comprehensive Dominus Noster.
The obverse legends are normally broken, as a result of the top of the emperor’s head
approaching the edge of the coin, but where the head is very small, as it usually is where the
junior emperor was a child, the legend can be unbroken above the head and follow the coin’s
circumference (e.g., 10, 11). This possibility was occasionally used in the second half of the
fourth century to emphasize the inferiority of a junior colleague (Pearce 1934a, 115-16, and in
RIC 1X.xxvii). Theodosius I, for example, used the unbroken form on coins struck in the name
78 TYPES AND INSCRIPTIONS
of Valentinian II after Gratian’s death in order to affirm his view that Valentinian, although now
formally a ruling augustus, was as much in his guardianship as his own son Arcadius. Pearce
made extensive use of the distinction in dating the coinage of the Valentinianic and Theodosian
periods, but there are so many exceptions to its incidence that it has to be used with prudence.
Child colleagues can have unbroken legends, as have all coins of Victor, son of the usurper
Magnus Maximus, who was appointed intra infantos annos, and the practice to some extent de-
pended on the denomination, for a ruler can have an unbroken legend on one and a broken
legend on another struck at the same time. Arcadius, for example, is shown with a broken
legend on his earliest solidi, struck while he was an infant (1 ff), but with an unbroken one on
his AE 4 of the same date.
D. REVERSE TYPES
The reverse types of the late fourth and the fifth centuries differ in a number of respects
from those of the Principate. Many still involve the emperor and there are a few of a generalized
military character—a trophy on one issue of tremisses of Theodosius II, a camp gate, common
on small AE of the fourth century but rare in the fifth (852)—but three important groups have
disappeared entirely, to the great impoverishment of numismatic art. Most immediately, and for
obvious reasons, is that of the gods and goddesses of the Greco-Roman pantheon, which were
eliminated within litthe more than a decade of Constantine’s conversion. With them went most
but not all of the personifications of moral qualities, civic virtues, geographical features, and the
like—Virtus, Pax, Securitas, Britannia—though some of these retained their place in coin legends.
Finally, there was the class of public monuments, whether in the capital or the provinces.
Though the fourth and fifth centuries saw the construction of Constantinople, with a huge
variety of churches, public buildings, and monuments, and a surprising amount of building
continued in Rome—the three great basilicas in the city, together with San Paolo fuori le Mura,
all date from this period—no attempt was made to depict them on the coins in the way that the
Circus Maximus, the Colosseum, and the Forum of Trajan had been shown on coins of the first
and second centuries A.D. Nor was there any attempt to “illustrate” specific acts of government
comparable to Vespasian’s Judaea capta coinages or Nerva’s issues commemorating the lifting of
the postal tax in Italy. The reason was presumably a change in taste coupled with the decentral-
ization of minting, for there could have been no religious objections of the kind that ensured
the banning of the inhabitants of a discarded Olympus. The only exceptions are trivial; what
are probably statues of Theodosius I on a miliarense of ca. 390 (below, pp. 111, 115; 163) and
some small AE of 392/5 (below, p. 122; 164—5, etc.), perhaps one of Arcadius’ wife Eudoxia on
some of the coins struck in her name (below, p. 134; 291-4).
To the general disappearance of personifications, however, there were three major excep-
tions, Victory, Roma, and Constantinopolis. Their survival is at first sight difficult to explain (cf.
Toynbee 1947, 135-6), for at least the first two of them had temples and altars, and saw sacrifices
performed in their honor. But Roma and Constantinopolis were personifications that involved
no affront to monotheistic beliefs, and Victory had never been an inhabitant of Olympus. She
was in any case too strongly entrenched in military ideology and ceremonial to be easily dis-
placed.
(1) Imperial Types
If the imperial bust is the regular obverse type in the fifth century, a full-length figure of
IMPERIAL TYPES 79
the emperor in military costume, normally standing but occasionally seated or on horseback, is
a frequent reverse one. The emperor is not identified by name, though the imperial monogram
used on small bronze coins from the 440s onward, or the lion that on some of Leo I’s coins is a
play on his name, are both substitutes for an actual imperial effigy and marks of identification.
That the military figure of reverse types is intended as the emperor is sometimes made clear by
a diadem on his helmet, but the image is often too small for even the fluttering tails of this to be
shown. The emperor is sometimes depicted as nimbate, notably on many miliarenses (306, 348,
548-9) and on consular reverses (above, p. 75). On the marriage solidus of Valentinian III and
Eudoxia, showing the pair in company with Theodosius II, all three figures are nimbate (395).
When the emperor stands alone, usually frontally but looking to left or right, he may hold
a spear or a labarum in one hand and rest his other on a shield. He may be accompanied by a
full-length Victory crowning him, or hold a globe surmounted by a miniature Victory doing the
same thing. More often he is shown in action, savagely kicking or trampling on a fallen enemy—
the traditional numismatic term is “spurning,” though “spurn” has in modern parlance lost this
original literal sense—or dragging a captive after him to the left or right with a trophy held over
his shoulder. Honorius, on a rare solidus of Ravenna (742), holds a long scepter topped with a
Christogram and has his right foot planted on a dead lion, probably a reference to the suppres-
sion of Heraclian’s revolt in 413 and the recovery of Africa, for this province was regularly
symbolized by a lion in ancient art.
It was probably this Honorian design that suggested the much more remarkable type which
virtually monopolized the reverses of Western solidi from 426 to 473 and showed the standing
figure of the emperor holding a long cross and with his right foot placed triumphantly on the
head of a human-headed serpent (Pls. 33-5). This has had many explanations. Babelon (1914)
thought it referred to the defeat of Attila at the battle of Chalons in 451, but it antedated this
by a quarter of a century. Other scholars have called attention to a medallion of Constantius II]
with the emperor on horseback rearing over a writhing serpent (Gnecchi 1912, pl. 10.9), the
traditional emblem of the powers of darkness, and pursued the serpent theme in literature
(Courcelle 1966). But the first appearance of the type, on a rare solidus struck at Rome in the
winter of 425/6, with a diminutive Valentinian III in this position beside a larger standing figure
of Theodosius II (PCR III.1531), shows that the human-headed serpent simply stood for “re-
bellion” in the form of the defeated usurper John. When the issue was continued at Ravenna in
426, Theodosius was dropped and the figure of Valentinian enlarged to fill the field, but the
serpent must still have been John. Later it became an indeterminate “enemy”—scarcely “heresy,”
as some writers have thought, though this is regularly stigmatized as a “cunning serpent” in
theological writings—who could be variously identified in each decade as the chief enemy of the
day. Under Glycerius (473-4) the serpent was replaced by a footstool (935—6), a conscious echo-
ing of Psalm 109:1: “Sede a dextris meis, donec ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum,”
“Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” This marked the end of
the type, which had in any case been limited to the West and never adopted by Eastern mints.
A notable feature of these fourth- and fifth-century imperial reverse types is their military
and frequently brutal character, with bearded barbarians speared or trampled on or dragged
away by the hair (cf. Levi 1952). Cohen, in an acid footnote not appreciated by all his readers,
remarked on the apparent paradox that the conversion of Constantine and the victory of the
Prince of Peace was accompanied by a growing savagery of coin types (Cohen 1880-92, VI, 407
note 1). To these changes in coin types, one may add the elimination from coin inscriptions of
the traditional imperial virtues of Clemency and Magnanimity. The modern reader is inclined
80 TYPES AND INSCRIPTIONS
to sympathize with the victims, but there is another side that is too easily forgotten. “These
captives, viewed with the eyes, not of modern sentiment but of contemporary Rome, personify,
not weak or defenseless ‘natives, but ruthless, barbaric hordes who threatened to destroy all that
the ancient world held dear—city life and culture, commerce, agriculture and industry, art and
religion” (Toynbee 1944, 182).
Beneficent aspects of imperial rule might in any case be noted, even if more occasionally—
the emperor stretching out his hand to raise a kneeling woman (858), normally turreted and
symbolizing either a particular city or the Respublica in general, or dispensing largess to her in
the form of small dots representing pieces of money (cf. note to 858 on p. 240). Such scattering
of largess was particularly associated with that dispensed by the consul from a chariot in his
processio consularis, a favorite theme of six-solidus medallions. More often, on coins as distinct
from multiples, the consul is simply shown seated in consular robes with a mappa in his raised
right hand and holding a cross-scepter in his left (e.g., 347). Where two emperors held the
consular office together, they may be seated side by side on a high-backed throne (e.g., 374-6),
though before Valentinian III became augustus he was made to stand, though consul, beside his
seated cousin (370-3), and on many occasions of consular issues no allusion was made to an
imperial colleague at all.
Earlier, in the second half of the fourth century from 367 onward, two seated emperors
with a Victory above them (61, 70) had been a common solidus type, and two standing emperors
was a common solidus type of Anthemius, who owed his throne to his colleague Leo I (901 ff).
Between 402 and 408, exceptionally, three standing emperors were shown on the AE 3 of East-
ern mints, with the infant Theodosius II as a diminutive figure, though holding spear and globe,
between the larger ones of his father and uncle (254 ff). The emperor on horseback, riding to
the left with a scepter in his left hand and his right hand raised in greeting, is an Adventus type
that came to be particularly associated with the coins struck 60 to the pound that Elmer de-
scribed as Fest-aurei (Toynbee 1944, 108-9). A different equestrian figure, riding to the right
with right hand raised, occurs on AE 3 of the years 392—5 and, as noted above, probably rep-
resents an actual statue of Theodosius erected at Constantinople in 394.
Imperial monograms are the equivalent of imperial effigies on the reverses of AE 4, which
had become too small to accept conveniently a figured type, though in fact they replaced the
cross or cross in wreath which had been widely used for the same denomination since the early
years of the fifth century. They began in the 440s, on the last issue of AE 4 of Theodosius II,
and became the main though not the exclusive type of the nummus until the middle of the sixth
century. In the fifth century their use was virtually limited to Eastern mints; their only occur-
rence in the West is on nummi of Severus III (900) and Anthemius (930-1). On those of Severus
the monogram is not that of the emperor but one containing the letters RICIMER, the name of
the magister militum and patrician who dominated Italy from 456 to his death in 472.
The monograms are in either the nominative or genitive case—the latter is common in
monograms used for seals, implying that the object thus identified is one “of” so-and-so—and
are normally in Latin letters, though Greek ones are sometimes used or a mixture of the two, so
that they could be interpreted by users of either tongue. This explains what are at first sight
anomalies, for example, a monogram of Zeno containing not merely the letters ZENO but an H
and an that usually has the form of a curved line beneath the left vertical, for it thus stands
for ZHNON. The monograms are of what has been termed a “box” or “square” form, being
built up where possible around a central letter with two uprights (H, M, N) instead of around a
cross—these were only introduced in the mid-sixth century—or around some letter with a single
VICTORY TYPES 81
upright stroke. All the letters of a ruler’s name are not necessarily present, only the most dis-
tinctive ones, and some may be detached, with a C or S being placed centrally above or below
the monogram instead of making part of it. There is one double monogram of associated em-
perors, that containing the letters of Basiliscus’ and Marcus’ names, this phenomenon being one
that recurred a century later with monograms of Justin II and Sophia (IOVCTINOV KAI COF-
IAE) and Maurice Tiberius (MAVRIKIOV TIBERIOV). The only monogram of a fifth-century
empress is that of Zenonis.
One would expect specimen monograms to have been distributed to the mints when these
were ordered to strike denominations using them as types, but the many varieties that occur
suggest that this was not done. On monograms of Marcian, for example, the R may be attached
to the left or the right of the M and the A be placed in different positions, while Zeno’s mono-
gram exists in two quite different forms. Occasional similarities between mints suggest that these
may have consulted between themselves, or employed a common die-sinker. But the varieties
found on the coins are almost endless. The table of monograms in LRBC (p. 110) is very incom-
plete, and scholars responsible for describing late fifth- and sixth-century bronze hoards have
tended each to compile lists of their own. The most useful collections of supplementary forms
are by Pearce and Wood (1934) and Adelson and Kustas (1960, 1962).
(2) Victory Types
Victoria, the Greek Nike, was a personification, a Republican or Imperial “Virtue,” not a
goddess from Olympus with an occasionally unedifying personal life. She was consequently able
to survive the adoption of Christianity in the Roman Empire, undergoing indeed a final trans-
formation into a Christian angel. Her traditional representation in Roman art, going back in its
main features to Greek models, was as a draped, female figure, winged, and having as her usual
attributes a wreath and palm, though variations were possible: a trophy might replace the palm,
or she might carry two wreaths instead of a wreath and palm, or she might be shown with a
shield. She normally stands, walks, or runs on a flat surface line, but she can stand on a prow, as
does the Winged Victory of Samothrace, or on a globe, in this case, on late Roman coins, rep-
resenting a famous cult statue in the Senate House at Rome. Her role as a coin type has been
comprehensively surveyed by Bellinger in association with one of his students, who collected the
material while he supplied the commentary (Bellinger and Berlincourt 1962), and certain as-
pects of one particular group of representations, a Victory advancing to the right, have been
studied in much greater depth by Vermeule (1958).
Gnecchi, in his analysis of Roman coin types (Gnecchi 1908, 62-3), listed nearly twenty
major varieties of Victory representations on imperial Roman coins: Victory standing, looking
right or left, walking or running left or right, seated, standing on a globe, crowning the emperor,
dragging a captive, and so forth. Many of these occur only under the Principate and did not
survive into the period covered by this volume. There is no point in discussing them in detail,
more especially since representations of Victory had long since entered the general corpus of
possible coin types without requiring specific circumstances to occasion their use. Some are as-
sociated with particular denominations. A seated Victory inscribing a vota legend on a shield is
the most characteristic semissis type; it went back to a cult statue of the Republican period and
had characterized a comparable monetary unit (quinarius aureus) of Augustus, though there
without a vota legend. Tremisses have usually a Victory walking toward the spectator or advanc-
ing left or right, often looking backward. The Eastern solidus, from Marcian’s accession in 450
onward, has as its almost invariable reverse type the standing Victory holding a long, jeweled
82 TYPES AND INSCRIPTIONS
cross as large as herself that had been introduced by Theodosius II in 420.
A notable feature of the period, indeed, is the tendency for the Victory to be brought into
association with the new religion. The most obvious example of this is the solidus type just
described, but equally significant 1s the way in which a Victory on a globe is replaced by a cross
on a globe, first that in the hand of a standing Victory on tremissis reverses in the 380s, replacing
in this case a palm, and subsequently, in the 420s, as a symbol held by the emperor on one type
of solidus (359-60, 364-9) and on accompanying AE (363). On semisses, and on other denom-
inations with a seated Victory struck in the name of empresses, the Victory is shown inscribing
a Chi-Rho on her shield instead of a vota legend (e.g., 273 ff), which would have been inappro-
priate for an empress, and it 1s no doubt significant that on these coins she is also shown fully
clothed instead of semi-nude as on the semisses of emperors. Bellinger suggested (Bellinger and
Berlincourt 1962, 62-3) that these issues mark her transformation into a Christian angel, but
the transition is better dated to a century later, when on coins of Justin I (518-27) the standing
winged figure on solidus reverses is shown in male attire, with tunic and pallium and a low belt,
instead of with a high girdle below her breasts (A. M. Friend in Vasiliev 1950, 422; Voirol 1944,
despite its title, “Die Wandlung der griechischen Siegesgéttin zum christlichen Engel nach anti-
ken Miinzbildern,” 1s unhelpful).
Two Victory representations require particular notice. One appears only exceptionally: it is
the Flavian Victory reverse on the large AE of Zeno (689) holding a wreath and trophy. The
other, much more important, was the Victory alighting on a globe and in a rather general way
representing the golden statue in the Senate House (Alf6éldi 1961; Pohlsander 1969), although
this seems to have held a wreath and standard, not a wreath and palm as it normally does on
coins. The statue and its accompanying altar were the subject of a prolonged battle in the 380s
between Emperors Gratian and Valentinian II and the pagan element in the Senate (Sheridan
1966; texts collected in Klein 1972 and, with good commentary, in Wytzes 1977). Statue and
altar were removed in 382, and in 384 St. Ambrose succeeded in preventing their restoration by
Valentinian II despite the dignified appeal of Symmachus with its famous plea for toleration on
the ground that there is no single road to revelation (“uno itinere non potest perveniri ad tam
grande secretum”). It is difficult to follow what happened to the statue subsequently, since altar
and statue are not clearly distinguished in the texts. It was the altar rather than the statue that
was the chief source of offense to Christians, for it was on it that senators would perform their
act of sacrifice with a few grains of incense on entering the building. The statue was restored by
Eugenius, and if it was removed again at Theodosius’ orders in the winter of 384/5, it must have
been returned by Stilicho, for a number of allusions in Claudian’s verse imply that it was still in
place in 404. What happened to it subsequently is unknown; it may have been removed by
Honorius after the downfall of Priscus Attalus in 409, or it may have been plundered and melted
down when Alaric sacked Rome in 410, as Zosimus (V.41.7) notes was the fate of a famous
golden statue of Valor (Vzrtus) in the city. Its occasional appearance on coins certainly long sur-
vived its removal from the Senate House, its last appearance taking the form of a Victory on
globe held by Heraclius on a ceremonial miliarense struck for him in 629 to celebrate his
triumph over the Persians (DOC II, pl. 10/59).
(3) Roma and Constantinopolis Types
Roma and Constantinopolis, as coin types, are normally seated figures. The only exception,
in late Roman coinage, is the standing Roma holding a trophy and a Victory on a globe which
appears on an issue of small bronze coins with the legend VRBS ROMA FELIX struck at Rome
ROMA AND CONSTANTINOPOLIS TYPES 83
between 402 and 408 (728-30). There is an excellent survey of the representation of the two
figures in late antique art, including medallions and coins (Toynbee 1947, 1951), and Vermeule
has made an important study of Roma alone, with special attention to the evidence of coins and
medallions (Vermeule 1959, 29 ff). The two are often confused in eighteenth- and nineteenth-
century coin descriptions, and it is true that Constantinopolis is never labeled as such in coin
legends, while Roma is sometimes accompanied by VRBS ROMA. Constantinopolis is distin-
guished by being shown as resting one foot on the prow of a vessel, this being partly a reference
to the situation of the city on the Sea of Marmara and its maritime importance, partly an allusion
to the sea battle at the mouth of the Hellespont, won by Constantine’s son Crispus over the fleet
of Licinius in 323. Vermeule continues to identify any helmeted and armed figure, even if seated
on a prow, with Roma (Vermeule 1959, 45), and in a sense this is correct, for Constantinopolis
in the course of the fourth century discarded her mural crown and scepter and as Nea Roma
adopted the costume and attributes of her elder sister. Representations of the two seated to-
gether shows them sometimes similarly attired, but in the fifth century one difference between
the two developed, for Old Roma, faithful to her pagan background, continued to be shown
holding a Victory or a Victory on globe, while Constantinople, founded by Constantine as a
Christian city despite its pagan dedication ceremonies, exchanged the Victory for a cross. Roma,
in Western representations, is on the other hand never shown holding a globus cruciger. The
seated figure of Roma-Constantinopolis on Eastern coins is therefore described in this volume
as one of Constantinopolis, as contemporary users of these must surely have assumed it to be.
Roma is normally shown seated in profile to the left, this being in the fifth century the
commonest type for Western siliquae (e.g., 192—9). She is effectively a seated Minerva in military
costume, wearing armor, paludamentum, and helmet, her shield by her side, and holds in one
hand either a spear, often with its point downward as a sign of victory achieved, or a long scepter,
and in the other a globe surmounted by a Victory (above, p. 82). She may be seated on a cuirass,
or on a low curule seat, or on a high-backed throne, the distinction between these being often
important for classification purposes. On medallions, and when shown in company with Con-
stantinopolis, she is normally on a high-backed throne facing instead of in profile. This, fairly
certainly, represents either the colossal statue set up by Hadrian in 135/6 in the temple of Venus
Felix and Roma Aeterna, or else its successor, installed by Maxentius (306-12) after the Hadri-
anic temple and its contents had been badly damaged by fire in 307, but despite the best efforts
of Vermeule we cannot be certain of the details of these statues or how faithfully they are repro-
duced by coins and other works of art. The profile types, with their many varieties detailed by
Vermeule, cannot be identified with any specific cult statues—they indeed go back iconograph-
ically to the helmeted figure of Pallas Athene holding a Victory and resting her left elbow on a
shield that was the reverse type of the tetradrachms of Lysimachus—though those showing
Roma on a high-backed throne may represent the Hadrianic figure.
The figure of Constantinopolis seated (Strzygowski 1893; Dagron 1974, 43—60) does not
greatly differ from that of Roma save in the presence of the prow, but she is always enthroned,
never seated on a cuirass, and while in fifth-century representations she is always helmeted in
imitation of Roma, she had initially been shown as a city Tyche wearing either a turreted crown,
symbolic of her walls and municipal status, or with a corn measure (modiolus) on her head to
remind viewers of her commercial importance. She had also been shown with a cornucopia,
attribute of Anthusa, a title conferred on the city in a solemn ceremony in 328, and also a symbol
of prosperity. On fourth-century medallions, which are large enough to show the details clearly
(e.g., Bellinger 1958, nos. 30-3), she often holds a thyrsus, the Bacchic staff topped with a pine-
84 TYPES AND INSCRIPTIONS
cone symbolic of Dionysus, bringer of riches and prosperity from the East. But with the growth
of her imperial status, the emphasis on her riches declined and she holds symbols of rule, usually
a scepter and an orb representing the world, as on the long Concordia Augg series of solidi of
Theodosius I’s reign struck in Arcadius’ name (1—4, 80-1, 110-11), as well as in that of the other
co-emperors. Later in Arcadius’ reign (207-17, 223, 242) and on all the early solidi of Theodos-
ius II (295-6, 298, 303-5, 307, 313-18, 329), the same figure is shown but with a Victory on
the globe. In 430 this facing figure looking right was eventually replaced by one seated to the
left holding globus cruciger and scepter and with shield beside the throne (379 ff).
When the two figures of Roma and Constantinopolis are shown together, most familiarly
on the solidi issued by Constantius II for his tricennalia, Roma is always the figure on the left as
viewed by the spectator, that is, in the place of honor, Constantinople being only Néa “Papn, and
she is facing, while Constantinopolis is usually half-right looking deferentially toward her. The
two figures appear on only a few issues of solidi, usually holding between them a shield with a
Vota inscription (e.g., 346), since the space was so restricted, but are very characteristic of double
solidi (e.g., 377), where they could be shown in fuller detail, and the pair of figures was probably
intended to reflect the value of the coin.
(4) Miscellaneous ‘Types
Fifth-century types not directly involving the emperor, Victory, Roma, or Constantinopolis
are few. A trophy of arms without any accompanying inscription makes an unexplained appear-
ance on a tremissis of Theodosius II struck sometime in the 420s (361-2), and a camp gate,
which had formed the type of several common bronze issues of the mid-fourth century, was
used briefly on coins of Thessalonica during Arcadius’ minority (64—5, 74), on an African num-
mus of the 420s (below, p. 224), and on an issue of AE 4 of Valentinian III struck at Rome in
the 440s (852). A lion formed the reverse type of one class of Leo I’s nummi (573-81); it was a
play on the emperor's name and replaced the monogram that by then was the most usual reverse
type of the denomination. Two local representations appear on Italian half-siliquae of the 470s
and 480s, a representation of Ravenna with mural crown, scepter, and cornucopia standing on
a ship’s prow (672-3, 682-3, 942)—it is more likely Ravenna than Constantinopolis, as some
have thought—and an eagle that was the traditional symbol of Rome but Christianized by the
presence of a small cross between the tips of its unfurled wings (684). They were not narrowly
local, however, for both the eagle and the Tyche of Ravenna appear on coins of Milan (682-4),
a city for which few imperial and no maritime claims could be advanced.
A more usual reverse type was a wreath containing a vota legend or, in the fifth century, a
cross or Christogram. The wreath and vota type was limited to two denominations of silver, the
heavy miliarense and the siliqua, and to the smallest denomination of bronze; it never in this
period occurs on gold. It was not a novelty, having been common from the reigns of the sons of
Constantine onward, and became especially frequent in the second half of the fourth century.
In the West it did not outlast the reign of Honorius; the latest issue consists of the coins of 412
with the legend VOT/XX/MVLI/XXX, for a siliqua of Julius Nepos with the legend VOTIS/V/
MVLTIS/X cannot be authentic. In the East it carried on to 440, though the VOT/MVLT/XXXX
coins of this year break with the custom that, save for the initial VOT/V, two numerals (e.g.,
VOT/V/MVLI/X) were required, one for the vota soluta and the other for those suscepta. (The
VOT/MVLI/XXXX on a coin of Marcian was no more than a repetition of that of Theodosius
II and such vota were meaningless in the context of his reign.) The wreath in future contained
REVERSE INSCRIPTIONS 85
no more than a blundered reference to a multiplicity of vows (VOT/VIMV/MTI) or an equally
blundered Salus Reipublicae legend (SAL/REI/PVI).
Side by side with wreaths containing vota legends are those containing a Christian symbol,
and these, unlike the wreaths with vota, do occur on the gold, though only on semisses and
tremisses. The commonest symbol is a cross. This already appeared on AE 4 before Arcadius’
death with a Concordia Aug legend (253 etc.), but was enclosed in a wreath for the same denom-
ination under Theodosius II (328, 332-45) and taken over in the 420s for the tremisses by the
augustae of Theodosius’ household. In the West a cross in wreath was to be the dominant trem-
issis type in the second half of the century. A Chi-Rho in wreath occurs on semisses and tremisses
and on siliquae, especially on those of augustae, where vota legends would have been inappro-
priate. Reverses on which the main type is a wreath have usually no legend round the circum-
ference, but semisses with a Chi-Rho of the middle decades of the fifth century (e.g., 818, 867,
896) have the wreath surrounded by SALVS REIPVBLICAE.
E. REVERSE INSCRIPTIONS
The reverse inscriptions of fifth-century coins are for the most part even less informative
than the obverse ones, being usually no more than mechanical variants of such standard forms.
as GLORIA ROMANORVM, VIRTVS EXERCITI, VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM, and VIC-
TORIA AVGG. Most of them could be associated in a general fashion with any imperial or
Victory type, though the use of a few is specific. VRBS ROMA (without a following FELIX) is
limited to silver siliquae and is never found save in association with a seated Roma, although the
reverse is not the case: a seated Roma can equally well be accompanied by GLORIA or VIRTVS
ROMANORVM. A full list will be found in Index 2.
The few legends that are exceptional are in most cases self-explanatory: NOVA SPES RE-
IPVBLICAE on solidi of Arcadius struck to celebrate the accession of Theodosius II (237, 250),
TRIVMFATOR GENT(ium) BARB(arorum) on silver multiples struck to celebrate Honorius’
“triumph” at Rome in 404 (below, p. 204), FELICITER NVBTIIS on solidi struck by Theodosius
II (395) to celebrate the marriage of Valentinian III to Licinia Eudoxia and subsequently that of
Marcian to Pulcheria (below, p. 158), the SALVS ORIENTIS FELICITAS OCCIDENTIS on
solidi struck in honor of Licinia Eudoxia in 439 (below, p. 245). The unusual IMP XXXXII COS
XVII probably refers to Theodosius II having reached a particularly auspicious regnal year, for
it was in the 42nd year of Augustus, reckoning from Caesar’s murder in 44 B.c., that, according
to the accepted chronology, Jesus Christ had been born (below, pp. 147-8). BONO REIPVBLI-
CAE, short for Bono Reipublicae nata, “born for the good of the commonweal,” on solidi of Hon-
oria (866) and perhaps Licinia Eudoxia (below, p. 244) is unusual but had good precedents.
Sometimes the explanation escapes us altogether. That SALVS MVNDI refers to the large cross
on the reverse of solidi of Olybrius (below, p. 262) is obvious, but why such a type should have
been selected under this particular emperor we have no idea. Nor do we know why a particular
solidus of Theodosius II, with a standing figure of the emperor holding a standard and a globus
cruciger (359-60, 364-9), should bear the novel legend GLOR(ia) ORVIS TERRAR(um), un-
less indeed this refers to the cross on globe here first appearing on a solidus.
The word Augustorum in the phrases CONCORDIA and VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM
could be abbreviated to AVG(GGG), with a varying number of G’s, and normally is so on solidi.
The epigraphic convention in such cases was that the number of G’s—rarely on coins, the num-
ber of A’s also—should correspond to the number of imperial augusti. This practice was regu-
86 TYPES AND INSCRIPTIONS
larly followed in the last decades of the fourth century, and is our major guide to dating where
particular coin types overlapped several different combinations of colleagues. It was still contin-
ued during the first decade or so of the fifth century, but very unsystematically (cf. Lafaurie
1958, 280-90). The mint of Milan did not reduce the number of the three G’s on the legends
of its solidi struck after Theodosius I’s death, and Honorius’ solidi of Ravenna all have three G’s,
despite the fact that this was only correct between 402, when the mint opened, and 408, when
Arcadius died, and in 421, when he had a Western colleague (Constantius II) as well as an
Eastern one. Theodosius II did, on the other hand, make such a reduction in the reverse legend
of his CONCORDIA AVGG(G) series struck between 403 and 419, so that there are ones with
GGG struck while Arcadius was still alive and others with GG struck after 408. (Pearce’s sugges-
tion [RIC IX.206 note *] that the coins with GGG were struck after 414, with the third G refer-
ring to Pulcheria, is out of the question: augustae were never treated as augusti in such com-
putations.) The usurper Constantine III in Gaul, equally, used a varying number of G’s in the
traditional manner, increasing the figure, in the period before Arcadius’ death, to the very un-
usual four so as to comprise himself as well as the three legitimate emperors Arcadius, Honorius,
and Theodosius II. Jovinus’ solidi with a Victoria legend, however, have simply GG, a meaning-
less figure in view of the existence of two other legitimate colleagues in 410-13, and from the
410s onward the number of G’s in reverse legends is either two or three and bears no relation
to the actual number of co-emperors.
The reverse legends are generally broken at the top of the coin because of the size of the
type, and Pearce, followed by LRBC for the bronze coins, meticulously distinguishes the place
in a word where the break occurs, for example, whether it is CONCOR — DIA AVGGG or
CONCORD - IA AVGGG. Alterations in the position of the break occur only when the legends
changed in length as a result of new associations of emperors: those in other legends, for ex-
ample, SALVS REI — PVBLICAE, GLOR — IA RO—- MANORVM, are fixed. Such breaks cannot
have had any ideological significance, as had the distinction between broken and unbroken in-
scriptions on the obverse, and Pearce was content to list their occurrence without discussing
their possible significance or indeed whether they depended on anything more than a die-
sinker’s whim.
They do in fact seem to be something more than the latter, though still being ideologically
meaningless. Their explanation seems to have been a purely practical one, and the changes can
sometimes be helpful in determining the order in which coins were issued or in separating one
combination of colleagues from another. In general, one can assume that of two legends where
a change was made, the one with fewer letters on the left-hand side of the coin is the earlier of
the two. When the die-sinker had to add a letter for another emperor on the right-hand side at
the end of the inscription, he would normally make space for it by transferring a letter or syllable
to the left-hand side. The new form, however, would survive further changes in the number of
imperial colleagues, since the die-sinker had become used to making the inscription in that
form; if the number of colleagues was reduced, it was easier to space the letters on the right-
hand side more widely than to make any more drastic change. Not till a new inscription was
devised would the process start again.
Two examples may be given of how this seems to have operated on solidi of Arcadius struck
during his father’s lifetime. In 383, before Arcadius’ accession, the type was a seated Constantin-
opolis accompanied by the inscription CONCOR — DIA AVCCC (RIC IX.223/43-—5). In January
383 a further C had to be added, and since the right-hand side of the resulting inscription would
be very crowded, the DI was moved over to the left, resulting in the better balanced CONCORDI
ACCESSORY SYMBOLS 87
— AAVCCCC (RIC IX.224/46). The consequent break DI — A remained unchanged through the
next Concordia type, with Constantinopolis holding a shield with VOT/V/MVL/X (RIC IX.224-
5/47) and continued to 392, despite the fact that after Gratian’s death the number of co-
emperors fell to three (CCC), rose again to four during the period when Maximus was recog-
nized (CCCC), and finally reverted to three after Maximus’ downfall.
In late 392, however, a new coinage was introduced having an emperor-trampling-on-
captive type with SM in the field. The inscription was initially a Victoria one broken VICTOR —
IA AVCC, which is found for Theodosius and Arcadius and also for Honorius (RIC [X.161/
12d), despite the fact that with three emperors there should have been a third G. Coins with
such an additional G were in fact introduced almost at once and struck in the names of the three
emperors, first with the same VICTOR — IA AVGGG break as before (RJC IX.161/14) and then,
to make the sides of the inscription more equal, VICTORI — A AVGGG (RIC IX.162/15). Here
the position of the break on the GG coins of Honorius is important to the scholar, for it shows.
that the coins date from 392, and are mules with reverses of the earlier GG issue of Theodosius
and Arcadius, instead of from 395, when one might have assumed them to have been struck
after the news of Theodosius’ death had reached the mint but before the decision had been
taken to introduce the new solidus with a three-quarter facing bust.
F. ACCESSORY SYMBOLS
Accessory symbols occurring in the reverse field or added to the mint-mark in the exergue
are sometimes particular to individual mints or issues. In such cases they usually defy explana-
tion, since we know little about the internal organization of the mints and cannot always tell why
one issue needed to be differentiated from another. Other symbols, usually a Christogram or
Chi-Rho but occasionally a cross, were more widely used and must have resulted from a general
instruction to the mints, but most of these did not outlast a single issue.
This was not the case with the eight-pointed star or asterisk that is a feature of nearly all
late Roman gold and silver coins, for while like the other symbols it was introduced to mark a
particular occasion, unlike them it was subsequently immobilized as a part of the design. It is a
feature of all gold and silver coins struck in Eastern mints from the early fifth century onward
into the reign of Justin II (565-78), when it disappeared. When it was reintroduced under
Maurice (582—602) it was intended to have a quite specific function, that of distinguishing ex-
ceptional solidi of 23 carats from the normal ones of 24 carats (Leuthold 1960). On the earlier
solidi and on most semisses and tremisses, and on the larger silver coins, the star was placed
wherever the die-sinker thought convenient in the field, but where the reverse type involved a
cross or other symbol or inscription in a wreath, so that there is no “field” in the normal sense,
it was placed after the mint signature, usually CONS*. Its origin is an important dating element
for the last coinages of Arcadius and Eudoxia and the early issues of Theodosius II.
It was suggested by Hahn (1979, 107) that the regular use of a star dated from Theodosius’
accession in 408, but it already occurs on the final issues of Arcadius and Eudoxia. Since Eudoxia
died on 6 October 404, it must therefore predate this. But most of her solidi are without a star,
as are some very early ones of Theodosius II (e.g., Hirsch Cat. 13, 9.vii.1957, lot 95), so it must
have been introduced after his elevation to the rank of augustus on 10 January 402. Kent in fact
suggested that it started in 403 (Kent 1978, note to no. 725, though without correcting the
attribution of the coin in question), but offered no explanation for its use.
Two occasions in 403 in fact offer possible alternatives, one the nomination of the infant
88 TYPES AND INSCRIPTIONS
Theodosius as consul on | January and the other the completion on 18 January 403 of the
twentieth anniversary year of Arcadius’ accession. Since some of Arcadius’ VOT XX MVLT
XXX coins are without stars, however, the introduction of these cannot have been occasioned by
his vicennalia, and one must fall back on the date of Theodosius’ consulate. A connection with
such celebrations is indeed confirmed by later practice, for in coin series bearing regnal dates
that were changed annually, we sometimes find a star added to some specimens of consecutive
dates when these bridged a consular year or a quinquennial or decennial anniversary of one,
for example, Carthage folles of Years 1 and 2 and of Years 10 and 12 of Justin II (DOC 1.241,
notes to nos. 143—7; Grierson 1982, 25-6). They evidently served to mark the coins struck
under such auspicious circumstances.
Once a star had been placed on the gold and silver of Eastern mints, Thessalonica as well
as Constantinople, it retained its place until 420, the date of Theodosius’ vicennalia. The new
coin type with the Long Cross and Victory was then introduced, and the star was dropped.
There are consequently coins with the legend VOT XX MVLT XXX of Theodosius II, Pul-
cheria, and Honorius without a star. But there are also ones of the same issue for Theodosius
and Pulcheria with a star, and all solidi of Eudocia, who was crowned augusta on 2 January 423,
have a star. The star must therefore have been restored either on this occasion or shortly before,
and by far the most probable date is January 422, when Theodosius assumed the consulship for
the tenth time. It is true that there are no recorded coins in Honorius’ name with a star, and he
died on 15 August 423, but in the last two years of his life his relations with Theodosius were
strained and solidi probably ceased to be struck at Constantinople in his name.
Thenceforward, from 422 onward, a star becomes a feature of all regular issues of gold and
silver coins in the East and of most ceremonial ones, though for these there are occasional
exceptions, for example, the Feliciter nubtis solidi of Theodosius, for which it was evidently not
thought to be an essential element in the design. A star was brought by Galla Placidia to the
West for her Italian solidi (825-8) and used on a few peripheral coins of the late 420s: a solidus
of Honoria (866) and one of the siliqua types struck at Trier in the names of Valentinian III and
Theodosius II (below, pp. 150, 238), but it was not accepted for general use. It returned again
under Anthemius, but it was subsequently limited in the West to solidi with Cross and Victory
and to tremisses of a Victory type instead of being used, as it was at Constantinople, for all
multiples and fractions in both gold and silver.
A variant of the star-in-field symbol occurred at Thessalonica under Leo I, where some
consular solidi have two stars instead of one (559), and this anomalous use returned under his
successors. Presumably the second star was initially intended to mark a particular issue, but
under Zeno it was apparently thought to be a convenient way of distinguishing solidi of Thes-
salonica from those of Constantinople. Some of his and all of Anastasius’ solidi of Thessalonica
are therefore marked in this manner (DOC I.26, no. 27; MIB I, pl. 5. 14-15), as subsequently
are ones of Justin I (MJB I, pl. 5.6—7) and initially those of Justinian (MJB I, pl. 16.20—1). These
coins all have CONOB instead of the earlier TESOB, and are otherwise only differentiated from
solidi of Constantinople in their style and in the absence of an officina numeral.
G. EPIGRAPHY
The lettering on the coins is basically Latin, in conformity with the language of the inscrip-
tions, though officina numerals at Eastern mints were in Greek. Presumably the die-sinkers at
Eastern mints, whose native language might be Greek or Syriac or Coptic, had to satisfy their
employers that they were sufficiently conversant with Latin to understand the inscriptions or at
EPIGRAPHY 89
least reproduce them correctly. Occasional mistakes, however, suggest that their acquaintance
with Latin was sometimes only slight. The following is a list of the variant forms of letters that
occur.
A Often with no horizontal bar, and occasionally having the form of an alpha with the
cross-stroke at an angle (A or A). Sometimes the top of the letter is open and the sides
nearly vertical, giving it the form of an H (e.g., 254 ff). The A with a chevron, which
is normal in the next century as an officina numeral on the copper, does not occur.
B CONOB is sometimes written CONOR, and R was to be a regular form of B on
Byzantine coins of a much later date, notably in the eleventh century (cf. DOC
III.187). B has the form b on some coins of the 470s (e.g., bASILISCUS: 607 ff). On
late Ravennate solidi the B sometimes has the form of a D with a horizontal bar across
it, e.g., 935. See also V, below.
C Sometimes written for G (q.v.). Occasionally has a right-angled form (LC).
The E is a square Latin letter in coin inscriptions, a rounded epsilon as a numeral.
The distinction is important in the case of the CONE in the exergue of AE 2 of Leo
I and Verina (below, pp. 165, 170).
F This can occasionally have the form of a gamma, without the lower bar, the die-sinker
having apparently made a mistake over a letter that does not occur in Greek.
G This tends to have the form of a C, with no tongue, in the formula AVG(GG) on
Eastern coins, most noticeably on solidi of Constantinople, presumably because G
does not exist in this form in Greek.
H-L Forms are normal.
M, N Forms are usually normal, but M can be , N is sometimes MY, and the letters can be
interchanged, e.g., IMVICTA, SEN(per).
O-Q Forms are normal.
R Sometimes stands for B (q.v.).
S Normal.
T Sometimes has the cursive form T (e.g., 599 ff in et), and in the substitution of THES
for THES (mint-mark) under Marcian (below, p. 159).
U-V V is the normal form, but a cursive, rounded 4 or HP occurs in the legend of the
Feliciter nubtiis solidus of Theodosius II (395), as Dressel noted in publishing the Ber-
lin specimen (Dressel 1898, 248 note 2), and in those of a number of Constantino-
politan coins of the 470s, for example, in bASILISC PS. The change in the pronun-
ciation of B, giving it the sound of V as in modern Greek, is already apparent in the
legend Gloria orbis terrarum on the last solidi of Theodosius II, for this is rendered as
GLOR ORVIS TERRAR. On the other hand, the empress who is usually known in
her Latin form of Verina, was in Greek Beovjva (i.e., Berenice), and the beta is retained
in the b E accompanying her standing figure on some nummi of Leo I (582-6).
X-—Z Forms normal.
90 TYPES AND INSCRIPTIONS
Greek numerals occur in the period only as officina numbers:
3 €=5 Z
4 S=6 H
7 O= 9
8 I = 10
A= 1 r
B= 2 A
Latin numerals occur in dates, usually VOT V (X, etc.) but also in XVII(I) and XXXXII(ID)
on some solidi of Theodosius II, and as the mark of value XL on folles minted at Rome in the
name of Zeno (689).
Il
THE EMPERORS AND THEIR COINS
A. EASTERN EMPERORS
ARCADIUS
Senior augustus 17 January 395-1 May 408
Titular augustus from 19 January 383
Co-emperors and (in italics) usurpers:
Gratian (to 25 August 383)
Valentinian II (to 15 May 392)
Theodosius I (to 17 January 395)
Maximus (spring 383-28 August 388;
recognized by Theodosius from 384)
Victor (383/4—?September 388)
Eugenius (22 August 392—6 September 394)
Honorius (from 23 January 393)
Eudoxia (9 January 400—6 October 404)
Theodosius II (from 10 January 402)
Constantine III (from summer 407)
Consulships: 1 385, ii 392, ii 394 (with Honorius),
iv 396 (with Honorius), v 402 (with Hono-
rius), vi 406 (with Theodosius IT)
The standard work covering the coinage of the first half of Arcadius’ reign is Volume IX of
RIC, by J. W. E. Pearce, a masterpiece of modern numismatic scholarship. It ends in 395, how-
ever, and although a further work (Pearce 1933b) continues to 423 a list of types, classed under
mints, denominations, and reverse legends, it is not easy to use and little help over chronology.
The AE coinage is covered in LRBC, and the fullest collection of illustrations is in Tolstoi (1912-
14). The indications in PCR are sometimes useful for dating. RJC has to be supplemented by
some earlier articles by Pearce, notably two on the coinage of Theodosius (Pearce 1938a, 1938b),
and by the discussions in Ulrich-Bansa’s Moneta Mediolanensis (1949). There is an important study
by Grumel, in the form of a review article on RIC IX, on the historical background (Grumel
1954). Pearce was in any case not infallible. He resolutely ignored an important article by Good-
acre (1938) proposing a different and altogether preferable scheme for the classification of Ar-
cadius’ early solidi, and the Urbs Roma Felix AE 4 of Rome, which he assigned (RIC IX.135-—6) to
394-5, is in fact of 402-8, for hoard evidence shows clearly that the “Theodosius” in whose name
it was also struck was Theodosius II and not Theodosius I. Although his knowledge of the coins
was unrivaled, and his eye for style allowed him to identify with great accuracy the products of
particular workshops or mints, there were curious gaps in his knowledge. He did not recognize,
for example, that what he regularly describes as an “imperial mantle” is in fact a consular loros,
and that coins showing the emperor so attired, and holding mappa and scepter, were ceremonial
issues struck in small quantities for distribution on consular occasions that can be firmly dated
from documentary and epigraphic sources.
Flavius Arcadius, the elder of the two sons of Theodosius I by his first wife, the Spaniard
Flavia Flaccilla, was born in 377 or 378—we know that he was 31 years old when he died—and
was associated co-augustus by his father on 19 January 383, the fourth anniversary of Theodos-
jus’ own accession. The promotion of a child only five years old was due to Theodosius’ desire
to establish his dynastic claims in the East.
93
94 ARCADIUS
TABLE 9
Theodosius I and His Contemporaries
The table does not include Magnus Maximus’ son Victor, who was co-augustus in 387-8, since although
coins were struck in his name, he had no independent sovereignty.
Th. aug. 19 Jan.
(Arc. aug. 19 Jan.)
(Max. usurp. spring)
(Gra. murd. 25 Aug.)
Max. exec. 28 Aug.
(Val. died 15 May)
(Eug. aug. 22 Aug.)
Hon. aug. 23 Jan.
Fug. exec. 6 Sept.
Th. died 17 Jan.
Arcadius inherited none of his father’s military, diplomatic, or administrative talents. His
slowness of speech and listless habits gave contemporaries the impression that he was simple-
minded. He spent virtually his whole life in Constantinople, with occasional summer excursions
to Ancyra, and when in Constantinople he seems to have rarely left the grounds of the palace.
As long as his father was alive, he was completely dominated by him, though in his absence he
summoned up courage to expel from the palace his stepmother Galla, whom Theodosius had
married for political reasons after Flaccilla’s death. After he became senior augustus in 395, he
was almost continuously under the influence of a succession of powerful personalities at court:
the praetorian prefect Rufinus in 395, the eunuch chamberlain Eutropius in 395-9, the Gothic
magister militum Gainas in 399—400, his wife Eudoxia in 400—4, and finally the praetorian prefect
Anthemius from 405 onward. He died at Constantinople on 1 May 408.
Arcadius married Eudoxia (below, pp. 133 ff) in 395 and had five children, two of whom,
Pulcheria (born 19 January 399) and Theodosius II (born 10 April 401), played a considerable
role in the history of the time. Of the three others, we know little more than their names,
Flaccilla (born 17 June 397; died between 399 and 408), Arcadia (born 3 April 400; died 444),
and Marina (born 11 February 403; died 3 August 449). The two latter followed Pulcheria’s
example in taking vows of celibacy and spent their lives in their separate palaces at Constanti-
nople, combining a luxurious life-style with a devotion to good works. Theodosius II was asso-
COINAGE OF ARCADIUS 95
TABLE 10
The House of Valentinian
Gratianus Funarius
Count of Africa
Marina = (1) VALENTINIAN I (2) = Justina, widow VALENS
Severa 364-75 of Magnentius 364-78
d. 388
GRATIAN
367-83 VALENTINIAN II Galla = (2) THEODOSIUS I
375-92 d. 394 379-95
Table 11
ciated co-augustus on 10 January 402 and appears on the coinage, or had coins struck in his
name, between 402 and 408. There was also a coinage in the name of his mother Eudoxia
between 400 and 404. Pulcheria was given the rank of augusta in 414, but this was after Arca-
dius’ death, and the coins in her name were minted by Theodosius II and Marcian.
The bulk of Arcadius’ coinage was struck during his father’s lifetime, most of it in Theo-
dosius’ part of the Empire but some by his colleagues elsewhere. The succession of rulers is not
easy to follow (Table 9). Valentinian I had come to the throne in 364 and almost immediately
associated his brother Valens (Table 10) as co-ruler in the East. He died of apoplexy on 17
November 375, having already (in 367) given himself a Western colleague and intended succes-
sor in the person of Gratian (367—83), his son by his first marriage. He was barely in his grave
when an army faction, in association with his second wife Justina, a formidable politician, had
his son Valentinian II, then only four years of age, proclaimed augustus (22 November). For the
years 375-8 there were thus three co-rulers, Valens in the East, Gratian in the West, and Val-
entinian II in the northern part of the prefecture of Illyricum, with Sirmium as its seat of
government. Valens was killed at Adrianople on 9 August 378, and Gratian, realizing that he
and the infant Valentinian II could not hope to rule the entire Empire, found a further col-
league for the East in the person of Theodosius, an able officer who had retired to his estates in
Spain after his father had been disgraced and judicially murdered three years before. After
Theodosius had proved his quality by containing the Gothic threat in Moesia during the winter
of 378/9, he was proclaimed augustus at Sirmium on 19 January 379 and put in charge of the
East. Exactly four years later, on 19 January 383, Theodosius associated with him his own son
Arcadius, so that his dynasty in the East would balance that of Valentinian in the West.
Arcadius’ nominal reign thus overlapped with that of Gratian, but it did so only briefly.
Magnus Maximus, an officer of Spanish origin, was proclaimed augustus in Britain in the late
spring or early summer and quickly accepted by the armies of northern Gaul. Gratian was mur-
dered at Lyon on 25 August. The overlapping pattern of reigns over the next few years is set
out in Table 9, as a grasp of the sequences of rulers is necessary for an understanding of the
coinages struck in Arcadius’ name. These are essentially ones of Valentinian II, for Gratian and
96 ARCADIUS
TABLE 11
The House of Theodosius
Capitals denote persons who had the rank of augustus or augusta.
Theodosius = Thermantia
d. 375
FLACCILLA = (1) THEODOSIUS I (2) = Galla, dau. of Honorius
379-86 379-95 Valentinian I
d. 394
Serena = _ Stilicho, mag.
SSS SSS ea | militum, d. 408
ARCADIUS = EUDOXIA HONORIUS
383-408 400-4 393-423
(1) = Maria Maria = (1) HONORIUS (2) = Thermantia
(2) = Thermantia d. 407/8 see across d. 415
Athaulf = (1) GALLA PLACIDIA (2) = CONSTANTIUS III
k. of the 421-50 421
Visigoths
410-415
Theodosius HONORIA VALENTINIAN III = LICINIA
d. 415 4262-450? 425-55 EUDOXIA
see below
N = (1) MARCIAN (2) = PULCHERIA Fiaccilla Arcadia THEODOSIUS II =EUDOCIA Marina
450-7 414-53 d. young d. 444 402-50 | 423-60 d. 449
EUPHEMIA = ANTHEMIUS LICINIA = VALENTINIAN III Flaccilla Arcadius
467-2? 467-72 EUDOXIA 425-55 d. 431 d. young
439-post-462
Alypia = Ricimer, mag.
4 sons militum
d. 472 Eudocia = Huneric, k. of Placidia = OLYBRIUS
the Vandals (472)
477-84
Magnus Maximus, while willing enough to mint in Theodosius’ name, preferred to ignore the
infant Arcadius. Gratian, it is true, was murdered only seven months after Arcadius’ accession
and so had little time in which to do so, but Maximus’ failure was a studied affront. But Valen-
tinian was naturally anxious to gratify his Eastern colleague, and Eugenius allowed the mints he
PHASES OF THE COINAGE 97
had inherited from Valentinian to continue minting in the boy’s name and started to mint in
that of Honorius after January 393. Finally, during the four months between Eugenius’ defeat
(September 394) and Theodosius’ own death (January 395), all mints of the West were in Theo-
dosius’ hands and coins were struck in Arcadius’ name in virtually all of them. From 395 onward
Arcadius had at his disposal all the Eastern mints, and Honorius minted in his name in the West.
The coinage thus falls into two almost equal periods, the first that of the twelve years 383—
95, when all coins in Arcadius’ name were minted by other rulers, and the second that of the
thirteen years 395-408 when most of them were struck in his own mints. These long periods
can be broken down into eight shorter ones as follows:
I. 383-6. Coins minted between his accession and his quinguennalia in 387.
(a) Eastern coins, both regular issues of solidi, AE 2 and AE 4, and a
consular solidus and siliqua of 385 (Pls. 1—4).
(b) “Western” coins, struck in Arcadius’ name, partly by Valentinian II and
partly by Theodosius during his temporary occupation of
Thessalonica in 384—5 (PI. 3).
II. 387. Coins of Arcadius’ quinquennalia (PI. 4).
III. 387-92. Coinage struck mainly between the death of Maximus (28 August 388) and
that of Valentinian II (15 May 392).
(a) Eastern coins (Pls. 4—6).
(b) Coins struck in Italy by Theodosius (Pls. 4, 6, 8).
(c) Coins struck in Gaul by Valentinian II in Arcadius’ name (PI. 8).
IV. 392-5. Coins struck between the proclamation of Eugenius in August 392 and the
death of Theodosius on 17 January 395.
(a) Eastern coins (Pls. 6-8).
(b) Western coins struck by Eugenius in Arcadius’ name (PI. 8).
V. 395-401. Eastern coins struck prior to the coronation of Theodosius II on 10
January 402 (Pls. 8—9). The nomination of Eudoxia as augusta on 9
January 400 was followed by the introduction of a coinage in her name but
did not affect that of her husband.
VI. 402. Eastern coins struck between the coronation of Theodosius II and his
assumption of the consulship on | January 403 (Pls. 9-10).
VII. 403-8. Eastern coins struck between the first consulship of Theodosius II and the
death of Arcadius (1 May 408) (PI. 10).
VIII. 395-408. Western coins struck in Arcadius’ name by Honorius (PI. 10).
I. First Period, 383-—6
A. Eastern Issues
These were struck by Theodosius in his son’s name, gold at Constantinople only and bronze
at Constantinople, Nicomedia, Cyzicus, Heraclea, Antioch, and Alexandria. Since the bronze
coinage is simpler, it is best dealt with first.
A new coinage was introduced in January 383 consisting of the two denominations AE 2
and AE 4, with no AE 3 apart from one anomalous coin (RIC 228/57f; LRBC 2144). This has as
reverse type a seated Constantinopolis facing, with the legend CONCORDIA AVCCC, that is,
the type of the preceding issue of 378-83 struck in the names of Theodosius, Gratian, and
Valentinian II. It must have been struck in January 383 before the decision to discontinue the
denomination for the time being had been made.
98 ARCADIUS
TABLE 12
Arcadius: AE 2 of 383-6
GLORIA ROMANORVM Emp. standing w. labarum and shield, captive kneeling or seated
to |.
RIC and LRBC distinguish coins on which the captive appears to be seated from those on
which he is kneeling, but these are probably no more than slightly different ways of making the
design, and the distinction is here ignored. Mistakes in the Antioch entries in the main text of
LRBC are corrected in its notes on p. 107.
Constantinople
(a) CONT 79 226/53a.1
(b) CONT 78 226/53a.2;b
(c) CONT (palm) — 226/53a.3
(d) T/CONT — 233/80
Nicomedia
(a) SMNA-—A 80 257/26.1—3
(b) X¥SMNA-—A 81 257/26.4—7
(c) ¥SMNA — A: — —
(d) T/+SMNA-A — —
Cyzicus
(a) SMKA — 243/15
Heraclea
(a) SMHA-—B — 195/12
(b)/SMHA —B — —-
(c) T/SMHA —B — 197/22.1
(d) T/SMHA — B* — 197/22.2
Antioch
Rosette-diademed
(a) ANTA-S — 284/41b.1-—3
(b) X¥ANTS 84 284/41b.4
(c) +/ANTS — 284/41b.5
(d) T|+/* ANTE — 291/60.1
(e) +|T/KANTE, S 85 291/60.2
Pearl-diademed
(a) XANTS — 283/41a.1
(b) +/* ANTS — 283/41a.2
(c) T|+/*ANTS —
(d) +/*ANTS — 284/41b.6
Alexandria
(a) ALEA 86 300/7
(b) T/ALEA 87 —
Thessalonica
(a) TEST — —
(b) TEST: 83 183/45a,b
Siscia
(a) ASISC 88-9 153/33.1
(b) ASISC:
153/33.2
EARLY BRONZE COINAGE 99
TABLE 13
Arcadius: AE 4 of 383-6
VOT V in wreath.
The table does not include the isolated mules of Arcadius obverses with reverses appro-
priate to Valentinian II (VOT/X/MVLT/XX) or Gratian (VOT/XX/MVLI/XXX). T 128-9 and T
130 are given as in Tolstoi’s text: the illustrations have been inadvertently interchanged.
Constantinople
(a) CONT 229/62b.1
(b) CONTI* 229/62b.2
Nicomedia
(a) SMNA-A 259/37c
Cyzicus
(a) SMKA—A 244/20d
Heraclea
(a) SMHA-A 196/18b.1-3
(b) SMHA-—A 196/18b.4
Antioch
(a) ANTA 289/55
Thessalonica
(a) TES 184/48b.1
(b) TEST 184/48b.2
Siscia
(a) A— BSIS:- 154/36
The effective bronze issues of the next few years consisted of AE 2 and AE 4. The AE 2 was
of two different types, one with a standing emperor in a ship (as 57-8) struck in the names of
Theodosius, Gratian, and Valentinian II, and the other with a standing emperor and captive
struck only in that of Arcadius. The coinage replaced a Reparatio Reipub. type with the emperor
raising a kneeling woman, and the reservation of the third officina at Constantinople for Arca-
dius, with coins in Gratian’s name struck in the first and second officinae and ones in that of
Valentinian II in the fourth and fifth, shows that it cannot have antedated Arcadius’ accession.
The AE 4, with a VOT V reverse referring to the “vows” taken at Arcadius’ accession, was in
principle struck only in Arcadius’ name. Both the AE 2 and AE 4 types were also minted at
Thessalonica in 383/4.
The Arcadian AE 2 has as reverse type the emperor standing, holding labarum and shield,
with a kneeling or seated captive in the left field. The legend is GLORIA ROMANORVM. The
bust of Arcadius on the obverse is very small and shows him holding a miniature spear, while
above his head is a Manus Dei holding a crown (see above, p. 76). The religious significance of
the last is obvious, and it had the added advantage of creating the impression of a broken legend
instead of the unbroken one which in strict protocol would have been more appropriate and
which was to be used for the accession AE 2 of Honorius. On the AE 4 the legend is unbroken.
The issues of the various mints are set out in Tables 12-13. They involve a plethora of privy
marks which in some cases occur over several mints and may indicate the year in which the coin
was struck. Since the mints were at the same time striking AE 4 with different vota numbers,
VOT/X/MVLT/XX (referring to Valentinian II) and VOT/XX/MVLI/XXxX (referring to Gra-
100
ARCADIUS
TABLE 14
Arcadius: Constantinople, Solidi
Down to 395 the bust faces right save on the consular issue of 385, when it is a consular bust
facing left. From 395 onward the bust is armored and three-quarters facing. The mint-mark is
CONOB save in 392/5, when it is SM/COMOB.
A Thessalonican equivalent of Class E of the Concordia Auccc also exists (T 20; R-; RIC 188/
64d; 110-11).
Legend and Type RIC IX
CONCORDIA AVCCC (C) Cpolis
seated facing, looking r. w. scepter and
globe. Small bust.
(A.i) CCC (inscr. breaks COR — DIA)
(383)
(A.i1) CCC (inscr. breaks DI — A) (383)
(B) CCC (383/4)
(C) CCCC (384)
CCCC, but larger bust (385-7)
(D) GLORIA ROMANORYVM Consular
figure seated (385)
CONCORDIA AVCCC (C) Cpolis
seated facing, looking r., w. scepter and
shield w. VOT/V/MVL/X
(a) CCCC (387)
(b) CCC (387-92)
(E) CONCORDIA AVCCC As first
type, but much older bust (387-92)
CONCORDIA AVCCC Cpolis
seated as before with shield, but VOT/
X/MVLT/XV (392)
VICTORIA AVCC (C) Emp. spurn-
ing captive. SM/COMOB or COMOB-
(a) CC (392), COMOB, R-IA
(b) CCC (393-5), COMOB-, R-IA
(c) CCC (393-5), COMOB, RI-A
CONCORDIA AVCC Cpolis seated
facing, looking r., holding scepter and
globe w. Victory. (395-401)
NOVA SPES REIPVBLICAE Vic-
tory seated, inscr. XX/XXX on shield.
(a) No star in field (402)
(b) Star in |. field (403-8)
21-5
27
32-5
3-11
28
223/45e
230/67c,d
224/46f
cf. note to
224/46f
225/47c,d
231/70c
(230/67c)
231/71c,d
161/12c.1,
13a.1
161/14b,c
162/15b,c
Cat.
72
76
77-8
80-1
155-6
161
162
207-17
237
250
EARLY SOLIDI 101
tian), coins are occasionally found in which, through accidental die linking, these rulers have an
Arcadius obverse. The only ones noted in LRBC are all at Antioch, LRBC 2735 with ANT (=
RIC 289/56d) and 2743 with AN (= RIC 292/69c) with VOT/X/MVLI/XX, and LRBC 2731 (=
RIC 289/58c) with VOT/XX/MVLI/XXxX, but there is also one of Nicomedia with VOT/XX/
MVLIT/XXX and SMN (A or A) (Cothenet 1967, as LRBC 2380 bis). Links in the other direction
could also occur, for example, LRBC 1963, a Heraclea coin in Gratian’s name with a VOT/V
reverse.
The solidi of this period in Arcadius’ name (Table 14), apart from the consular issue of 385,
have on the obverse a childlike bust of the emperor and on the reverse Constantinopolis seated
right holding scepter and globe, the legend being CONCORDIA AVCCC(C) with either three
or four C’s (1-4). The bust can have been only roughly related to Arcadius’ actual appearance,
for it was a Roman convention that children and young people were always shown older than
they really were. The coins with four C’s were all dated by Pearce to 383, between January and
the autumn, when there were four augusti, Gratian, Valentinian II, Theodosius, and Arcadius,
despite the fact that the coins included at least one coin in Arcadius’ name with an appreciably
older bust. An alternative view was put forward by Goodacre (1938), who argued that the coins
with the slightly older bust must belong to a period between late 384 and 387/8, when the four
C’s would be Valentinian II, Theodosius, Arcadius, and Magnus Maximus. We can now say with
confidence that Goodacre was correct, for a previously unknown consular solidus of 385 (72)
shows that at that date Arcadius’ bust was still of the childlike type. We must in fact go further,
and also assign to the period after 384 some of the coins with four C’s and a childlike bust.
The gold coins of the few years prior to 387 should in theory form five classes, but those of
two of them cannot be distinguished from each other. They are as follows:
Classes A and C, with very small bust and four C’s. 383 (19 January—October) and late 384-<a.
386.
The first of these periods would have ended in about October 383, when the news of Gra-
tian’s death on 25 August must have reached Constantinople. The beginning of the second is
harder to determine, since the exact period during which Theodosius accorded a reluctant rec-
ognition to Maximus as a colleague is unknown (cf. Vera 1975). The historian Zosimus (IV.37)
does no more than describe how Theodosius received the grand chamberlain of Maximus, con-
sented to recognize his master’s usurpation, and despatched Cynegius, praetorian prefect of the
East, to proclaim Maximus in Egypt and take certain measures against paganism. The consuls
for 386, recognized throughout the Empire, were also Honorius and Evodius, the latter being
Maximus’ praetorian prefect of the Gauls, and a few rare coins were struck in Maximus’ name
in Theodosian mints. But the dates remain uncertain. Most likely recognition ran from late 384,
when Theodosius marched into north Italy to guard against any further extension of Maximus’
power, to May 387, when Maximus finally attacked Valentinian II and drove him in panic flight
to Thessalonica (below, p. 110).
Classes A/C can, it is true, be divided into two groups, and one is datable. It is the earliest
of all, with a reverse inscription breaking CONCOR — DIA (RIC 223/45e), for it links up with
the CCC coinage struck prior to Arcadius’ accession. It can thus be attributed to 383 with cer-
tainty. Subsequently the inscription was redesigned to accommodate the extra C more satisfac-
torily and become CONCORDI — A (RIC 224/46f, g), but the fact that this break occurs for
Gratian, as well as for Valentinian II, Theodosius, and Arcadius, shows that it must have been
made in the course of 383 and not in 384 or later. It seems likely, however, that most of the
102 ARCADIUS
CCCC coins belong to the period after Maximus’ recognition, and they have been so classed in
the catalogue here (2-4).
Class B. Similar bust, but three C’s. October 383-late 384.
These coins have a similar, very small bust, a CONCORDI — A break carrying on from the
previous group, and only three C’s (RIC 230/67c, d; 1).
Class D. Consular solidus and siliqua. January 385.
The rare solidus of 385 (RIJC-; 72, and a specimen in a private collection in Switzerland)
has on the obverse a consular bust of Arcadius facing left and on the reverse his seated figure,
with GLORIA ROMANORVM as legend and a Christogram in the field. The date must be that
of Arcadius’ first consulate in 385, since by the date of his second one in 392 a much older bust
was in use. The coin is an interpolation in Class C, being an exceptional issue struck for distri-
bution at the inauguration ceremonies in January.
The accompanying siliqua (RJC—; 73), with a very young bust of Arcadius, is not dated by
the legend (GLORIA ROMANORVM) but must belong to Arcadius’ first consulship, for the
mint-mark in the form CONS: was used for siliquae of Flaccilla (RIC 232/78) and she died in
386, four years before Arcadius’ second consulship in 392. The date 396, that of Arcadius’
fourth consulship, which is proposed in the catalogue of the sale at which the coin was acquired
(Sternberg sale III, 30.xi.1974, lot 666), is much too late.
Class C, again. Larger bust, with four C’s. 386-7.
The only published specimen of this class seems to be T 19. Pearce (note to RIC 224/46f)
has suggested that it might be an ancient forgery, but this reflects his difficulty over reconciling
its distinctly older bust with the childlike ones of Classes A and C. There seems no reason to
doubt its authenticity.
B. “Western” Coins. 383-6
Arcadius’ contemporaries in the West in this period were Gratian (to 25 August 383) and
subsequently Maximus in Gaul and its appendages (Britain, Spain) and Valentinian II in the
central provinces, Illyricum, Italy, and Africa. It has been supposed by some (e.g., Piganiol 1972,
223-4) that Valentinian had only the northeastern (Balkan) part of the central prefecture, with
Gratian retaining Italy and Africa, but this is not borne out by the coins and is explicitly contra-
dicted by the text of Zosimus (IV.12.9). Gratian and Maximus ignored Arcadius completely, so
there are no coins of this period struck in his name at the mints of Trier, Lyon, or Arles. Valen-
tinian, on the other hand, minted in his name at five mints, Siscia and Thessalonica in the
Balkans and Aquileia, Milan, and Rome in Italy. In addition, during Theodosius’ temporary
occupation of Thessalonica in 383-4, this mint struck coins of Eastern pattern in Arcadius’
name.
The Western coinages in Arcadius’ name over the period 383-8 are set out in Tables 15,
16, and 18, the issues for each denomination being in their probable chronological order.
Valentinian II introduced no new types to celebrate Arcadius’ accession, but his current
solidus, having two seated emperors as reverse type, began at Thessalonica to be struck in the
new augustus’ name. Most Arcadius coins of this type are later, dating from 384-—7/8, but some
of the Thessalonican ones (RJC 180/34k) have a privy mark, a pellet in the field above COM,
which occurs also on solidi bearing Gratian’s name and must thus date from 383. To the same
date should probably be ascribed a rare AE 4 with VICTORIA AVG legend having for type two
EARLY WESTERN COINAGES 103
TABLE 15
Western Coinages in Arcadius’ Name, 383-8
In the right-hand column, G, V, and Th are Gratian, Valentinian II, and Theodosius I
respectively.
(a) Valentinian II, Theodosius I: 383-4
Coinage of 383
Valentinian II: Thessalonica
Solidus
VICTORIA AVGG Two emps. seated |
(a) :/COM 180/34k G, V,Th |
AE 4
VICTORIA AVG Two Victories
facing each other, each holding
wreath
(a) /TEST 187/63c 63 V, Th
Coinage of 383/4
Theodosius II: Thessalonica and Siscia
CONCORDIA AVGGG Cpolis seated
looking r.
(a) COMOB (Thessalonica) 184/50b,c
(b) COMOB, S after AVGGG
(Thessalonica) 184/50d
AE 2
GLORIA ROMANORYVM Emp. in
ship (irregular for Arcadius)
(a) wreath/*TESI 57-8 V, Th
GLORIA ROMANORYVM Emp.
standing, captive to I.
(a) TEST, captive seated -——
(b) TESI-, captive seated 183/45a 59-60 —
(c) TESI-, captive kneeling 183/45b
(d) ASISC, captive seated 153.33.1
(e) ASISC-, captive seated 153.33.2
AE 4
VOT/V in wreath
(a) TES 184/48b. 1 Th
(b) TEST 184/48b.2
(c) ASIS- 154/36
Victories facing each other and each holding a wreath (RIC 187/63c; type as 63). Although it is
otherwise known only for Valentinian II and Theodosius, not for Gratian, it has the same pellet
in the field as the solidus, and the AVG legend distinguishes it from the later AVGGG coinage
of the same type.
There followed, at the mints of Siscia and Thessalonica, an invasion of Eastern coinages
104
Western Coinages in Arcadius’ Name, 383-8 (cont.)
(b) Valentinian II, 384—8; Normal Issues
ARCADIUS
TABLE 16
Solidus
VICTORIA AVGG Two emps.
seated
(a) COM
(b) AQ/COM
(c) MD/COM
(d) RM/COM
Siliqua
VIRTVS ROMANORYVM Roma
seated facing
(a) AQPS
VRBS ROMA Roma seated I.
(a) RE
AE 3
GLORIA ROMANORVM Emp.
dragging captive r.
(a) TES
(b) I'/TES
(c) xSISC
(d) xSISC:
(g) R(leaf)x
(h) Rx, broken obv. leg.
(i) R(leaf)x, broken obv. leg.
AE 4
VICTORIA AVGGG Victory
adv. l.
(a) xSIS
(b) xSIS, broken obv. leg.
(c) xSIS:, broken obv. leg.
(d) AQx
(e) AQx, broken obv. leg.
(f) Rx
VICTORIA AVGGG Two
Victories facing each other,
each holding wreath
(a) SMAQS (unbroken leg.)
(b) SMAQS (broken leg.)
(c) Rx (unbroken leg.)
(d) Rx (broken leg.)
(e) :/Rx (broken leg.)
(f) :/Rx (broken leg.)
(g) ‘/R(leaf)x (broken leg.)
38
37
95
97
96
126
127
185/55e,f
103/40c
78/8c
103/41c
129/53c
186/60c.2
186/60c. 1
154/38c. 1-2
154/38c.3-4
104/45c
130/55c. 1-3
130/55c.4—6
130/55d.1
130/55d.2
155/39c
155/39d.1—2
155/39d.3-4
104/46c
104/46d
130/56d
104/47c
104/47d
131/57d
131/57e.1
131/57e.2-4
131/57e.5-6
V, Th
V, Th
V, Th
V, Th
V, Th
V, Th
EARLY WESTERN COINAGES 105
which Pearce plausibly explained on the assumption that Theodosius, in face of a possible threat
from Maximus, temporarily occupied Illyricum from the autumn of 383 to late in 384 (Pearce
1934a, 117-19, developing and correcting arguments previously put forward by Alféldi and
Stein). The denominations and types introduced were the same as those being struck at Con-
stantinople, the solidus with Constantinopolis seated, two types of AE 2, and one of AE 4. The
solidus, with COMOB in the exergue, is known only for Thessalonica, the mint attribution being
based on style. The AE 2 are of the current Eastern types, one with the emperor in a ship
(Theodosius and Valentinian II) and the other with the emperor standing and a captive seated
or kneeling in the left field (Arcadius). At Siscia, which had only two officinae, there was no
attempt to allocate any particular officina to a single emperor, but at Thessalonica, which had
four, Officina I was, as at Constantinople, reserved for Arcadius, while coins in the name of
Valentinian were struck in Officina A and those of Theodosius in Officinae B and A. Occasional
errors occurred, however, for there are at Dumbarton Oaks two coins of Arcadius having re-
verses appropriate to his colleagues, not to him, but with his normal officina numeral (57-8).
The same two mints also struck AE 4 of VOT/V type (see Table 15).
Illyricum was restored to Valentinian sometime in 384 and remained in his hands till 387,
when Maximus invaded Italy and Theodosius again, as a precautionary measure, occupied II-
lyricum, though probably not on this occasion interfering with its minting arrangements. Since
Valentinian owed Theodosius a substantial debt of gratitude, it is not surprising that in the years
384-7 he minted regularly in Arcadius’ name, as well as in Theodosius’, with both “regular”
issues and special ones on the occasion of Arcadius’ guinquennalia in 387. The regular issues,
omitting the Milanese tremisses (RJC 78/11c) which Pearce attributed to this period but which
are a little later (below, p. 115), are set out in Table 16. The regular issues do not seem initially
to have included any AR, for there are none with a small bust of Arcadius compared to that
used on the Thessalonican consular AE 3 of 385.
The solidi are of the same type (61, 70) as Valentinian’s earlier issue, having on the obverse
a small bust of Arcadius—it is slightly larger at Milan than at Thessalonica—and as reverse type
two seated co-emperors holding a globe between them, with the outspread wings of a Victory
above, the legend being VICTORIA AVGG and the exergue reading COM. The seated emper-
ors had been Gratian and Theodosius when the type was originally introduced, but the design
was retained, together with the corresponding pair of G’s in the inscription, even when the
number of co-augusti was more than two. The Thessalonican coin has COM (without pellet) as
mint-mark (61). The solidi of Aquileia and Milan have COM in the exergue and either AQ or
MD in the field. Tolstoi, on the authority of Sabatier (1.103.19) lists a coin of the same type with
RM (T 37), but while its existence is probable, it had not been seen by Pearce and so is omitted
from RIC. There was no fractional gold.
The earliest silver coins struck by Valentinian in Arcadius’ name, prior to the vota issues of
387, are siliquae with a seated Roma struck at Aquileia and Rome, the Aquileian coins having
the legend VIRTVS ROMANORVM and the mint-mark AQPS (68) and the Roman ones VRBS
ROMA and RE. Both were also minted in the names of Valentinian and Theodosius, and the
Thessalonican one could in theory be as late as 388/92, when Theodosius was in possession of
the mint of Thessalonica, but the size of Arcadius’ bust points to an earlier date.
The largest bronze denomination normally struck by Valentinian were AE 3 having as re-
verse type the emperor holding a labarum and dragging a captive to the right (62, 66, 69). They
are limited to the mints of Valentinian’s dominions other than Milan: Aquileia with SMAQ (69),
Rome with R, Siscia with SISC (66), and Thessalonica with TES (62), the mint-mark normally
106 ARCADIUS
accompanied by an officina numeral or initial. They are dated by the inclusion of Siscia in the
roster of issuing mints, and on earlier coins the bust of Arcadius is appreciably smaller than on
later ones (cf. 62 and 66 with 69).
The first of the two accompanying AE 4, also datable by the inclusion of Siscia in the issue,
has as legend VICTORIA AVGGG and as type a Victory advancing to the left. It was minted at
Aquileia with AQ, at Rome with R, and at Siscia with SIS (67), but was not minted at Thessalon-
ica. The second type revived that of 383, with two Victories, but has AVGGG as legend instead
of AVG. It was struck only at Aquileia and Rome.
The special issues of these years, which are set out in Table 18, were in celebration of Ar-
cadius’ first consulship of 385 and his quinquennalia in 387. The latter, which were quite exten-
sive, are described in the next section. The only consular issue, properly speaking, is a rare one
of AE 3 struck in Thessalonica (RIC 186/59c; 74). The obverse type is a left-facing consular bust,
very small as on the corresponding solidus and siliqua of Constantinople (72-3), and the reverse
one is a camp gate with a Christogram above, the legend being GLORIA REIPVBLICE. Coins.
of the same type were struck in the names of Valentinian and Theodosius, with Arcadius as
usual taking Officina [’. This issue was apparently followed by two curious ones peculiar to
Thessalonica and characterized by the use on AE 3 and AE 4 of types previously used for AE 2
and AE 3. The AE 2 type transferred to AE 3 is that of the emperor in a ship, with the legend
VIRTVS AVGGG. The AE 3 type reduced to AE 4 has a normal profile bust on the obverse but
as reverse type the camp gate of the consular issue, with the same GLORIA REIPVBLICE
legend but without the Christogram above the gate (64-5). Both denominations were struck in
the names of all three emperors, the coins of Arcadius being usually but not invariably of Off-
cina I’.
II. Coins of Arcadius’ Quinquennalia, 387 (Pl. 4)
A. Eastern Issues
We know from the literary sources (e.g., Consularia Constantinopolitana, a. 387, in MGH, Auct.
Antig., 1.244) that Arcadius’ guinquennalia were celebrated with exceptional magnificence in Jan-
uary 387, at the opening of the fifth year of his “reign.” Theodosius celebrated his own decen-
nalia, two years ahead of time, to coincide with them. The extra levies required for these and
other government needs led to a riot at Antioch in February in which the emperors’ portraits
were defaced and their statues thrown down, the subsequent enquiries and punishments playing
a conspicuous role in the literature of the period (Downey 1961, 426-32; Downey 1962, 123-—
9; Browning 1952). The coins specially issued in Arcadius’ name, with an extraordinary array
of multiples (see Table 17) and a bust only slightly older than that heretofore used, were, in the
Fast, as follows:
1. A six-solidus medallion of which the only recorded specimen was lost in the Paris theft of
1831 but of which some poor reproductions survive (illus. Toynbee 1944, pl. 30/1). As with
the other multiples, the inscription (GLORIA ROMANORVM) gives no clue to the date,
which depends on the likeness of the bust to that used for the solidus and semissis. In this
case the dating is only probable, for the reproduction is not very clear.
2. A 4% solidus multiple (20.11 g) of which there is a unique specimen, known since the nine-
teenth century, in the Bibliothéque Nationale, ex Beistegui collection (RIC 230/65b; Toyn-
bee 1940, with illus.; identical with Tolstoi pl. I.1). Here the dating from the portrait is clear.
COINAGES OF 387 107
TABLE 17
Arcadius: Constantinople, Gold Multiples and Fractions
All known multiples seem by the portraiture to form part of Arcadius’ quinquennalian
coinage of 387, as also do his semisses and 1% scripulum pieces, though the vota on some of the
latter are those of Theodosius and not Arcadius. The mint-mark is always CONOB.
Six-solidus multiple
GLORIA ROMANORVM Enpp. in chariot Toynbee 1944, |
pl. 30/1.
4+/2-solidus multiple
GLORIA ROMANORVM Cpolis seated I. 230/65b |
Three-solidus multiple |
SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE Emp.
standing, holding labarum and globe
w. Victory 230/66
Aureus (1/60th lb.)
VICTORIA ROMANORVM Victory
adv. 1., ? in 1. field
Semassis
(a) VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM Victory
inscr. VOT/V/MVL/X on shield, ? at
her foot
(b) As last, buat VOT/X/MVLT/XX Ratto sale,
26.1.1955,
lot 1145
(Giorgi coll.)
1/2-scripulum piece
As semissis, but + at foot of Victory
(a) VOT/V/MVL/X 225/50c
(b) VOT/X/MVLT/XX — R 10
Tremissis
VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM Victory
adv. r., looking back, holding wreath
and gl. cr.
(a) No star in field (388-402) 232/75c
(b) Star in r. field (403-8) —
3. A three-solidus multiple (13.32 g) of which there is a unique specimen at Berlin, from a
Schulman sale of 17.vi.1924, lot 1018 (RIC 230/66; illus. Schulman cat. and Toynbee 1940,
pl. 111.3). Dating clear.
4. An aureus (5.54 g = 1/60th Ib.) in the Hermitage, ex Tolstoi (pl. 1.2). Toynbee (1940, 14 note
14) thought the portraiture might be slightly later.
5. Solidus with a seated Constantinopolis holding a shield inscribed VOT/V/MVL/X. This forms
two classes, one with CCCC (RIC 225/47c, d; 76), the other with CCC (RIC 231/70c; 77-8).
The ones with CCCC were presumably struck for as long as Maximus continued to be rec-
ognized and then replaced by those with CCC.
6. Semissis with a Victory inscribing VOT/V/MVL/X on a shield, with Christogram in right field
108 ARCADIUS
TABLE 18
Western Coinages in Arcadius’ Name, 383-8
Valentinian II, 384-8: Special Issues
The VOT/X/MVLI/XV (or XX) coins struck in 387 celebrate Theodosius’ decennalia, cele-
brated at the same time as Arcadius’ quinquennalia.
Thessalonica
Consular obverse (385)
AE 3
GLORIA REIPVBLICE Camp gate,
above ?
(a) TES
(b) [/TES
Normal obverses
AE 3
VIRTVS AVGGG Enpp. in ship
(a) 1/TES
GLORIA REIPVBLICE Camp gate
(a) TES
(b) x/TES
Quinquennalian Issues (387)
Solidus
CONCORDIA AVGGG Cpolis
seated, inscr. VOT/V/MVLT/X on
shield
(a) MDOB
(b ) COMOB (strike in 4)
Same, w. VOT/X/MVLT/XV
(a) COMOB
Six-siliqua piece
TRIVMFATOR GENT BARB
Emp. standing, captive in |. field
(a) RE
Siliqua
VOT/V/MVLTYX in wreath
(a) MDPS
VOT/X/MVLT/XX
(a) TES
AE 4
VOT/V/MVLTY/X in wreath
(a) SMAQx
(b) RP
VOT/X/MVLT/XxX in wreath
(a) SMAQx
108-9
103
26
zt
50
68
186/59c. 1
186/59c.2
186/61c
187/62c.1
187/62c.2-4
77.7b
184/51
185/52
129/52b
79/13
185/58d
104/49b
131/58
COINAGES OF 387 109
(RIC — : 79; apparently unique).
7. 1% scripulum. Same type as semissis but of smaller module (15 mm as against 17mm) and
lower weight (1.7 g as against 2.25 g) and with a cross instead of a Christogram in the field
(RIC 225/50c = T 41). Specimens sometimes weigh no more than ca 1.5 g, that is, being
struck as tremisses despite their type. Elmer (1935, 286) dated the coins to 383, on the
assumption that the vota referred to Theodosius I, and treated them as crucial for dating
the introduction of the tremissis (above, pp. 33—4), but the size of the bust on both the 12
scripulum and the semissis makes 387 more likely.
No Eastern silver coins of Arcadius with VOT/V/MVLI/X are known, though one would
have expected them. There is, however, a rare coinage (RIC 232/77d, e; 75) with VOT/X/MVLT/
XX (referring to Theodosius’ vota) which is shown by its mint-mark CONS: to be of this date.
There was also a regular issue of AE 4 with VOT/X/MVLI/XxX in a few mints that belongs
to 387 and the following period.
B. Western Issues
Maximus continued to take no notice of Arcadius’ existence, but Valentinian struck coins in
the boy’s honor, in all three metals, on a substantial scale. They were as follows:
1. Solidi of the same type as Constantinople (Constantinopolis holding a shield inscribed
VOT/V/MVLT/X), minted at Milan and Thessalonica. At Milan the type was struck in the names
of the three imperial colleagues, but instead of reading CCC (as at Constantinople) the legend
ends CCC®, the theta perhaps indicating that the final @ stood for Theodosius and did not imply
that Valentinian included Maximus on the roster of co-emperors (RIC 77/7b). A Thessalonican
equivalent is not known in gold, but Pearce possessed a strike of it in copper (RIC 184/51).
The same type was struck with VOT/X/MVLI/XV or MVLI/XX in honor of Theodosius’
decennalia, celebrated at the same time. These solidi are known for Milan in the names of Theo-
dosius and Valentinian, with one of Arcadius probably still to be found, as at Thessalonica there
is one in Arcadius’ name with VOT/X/MVLI/XV (RIC 185/52).
2. Pearce attributes a silver medallion (RIC 129/52b) of 6 siliquae in the Hermitage that was
formerly in the Tolstoi collection (T 50: 10.7 g as against a theoretical weight of 13.4 g, but badly
scraped) to the period 383/7. The dating is supported by the mint-mark R€, for R was the
current mint-mark of Rome and Officina € was on its silver coins reserved for Arcadius. Sabatier
records another specimen as struck in bronze (S I.101.8 = T 72). The medallion exists also for
Theodosius, but is not known for Valentinian. The array of medallions struck at Constantinople
for Arcadius’ quinquennial celebrations suggests that this may have been struck on the same
occasion. Its legend, TRIVMFATOR GENT BARB, and its type, the emperor holding a laba-
rum and globe with a captive in the left field, ought in principle to have commemorated a victory,
but in fact both were conventional and could be used at any time.
3. Siliquae struck in 387 might have in a wreath either VOT/V/MVLT/X (for Arcadius) or
VOT/X/MVLT/XX (or XV) (for Theodosius). A VOT/V/MVLT/X one was struck at Milan, with
MDPS, but apparently in Arcadius’ name only (RIC 79/13); the VOT/X ones are in the names
of his co-emperors. At Thessalonica, on the other hand, there are no VOT/V/MVLI/X coins,
but there are VOT/X/MVLI/XX ones, heavily die-linked and with TES as mint-mark, in the
names of the three emperors (Arcadius: RIC 185/58d).
4. AE 4 coins with VOT/V/MVLIYX in a wreath were struck in Arcadius’ name at Aquileia
110 ARCADIUS
(RIC 104/49b) and Rome (RIC 131/58), with SMAQ and RP respectively, but not at Siscia or
Thessalonica. These mints did, however, strike VOT/X/MVLT/XX coins in honor of Theodosius,
but only in his name and Valentinian’s, not in that of Arcadius.
III. Coinage of 387-392
Within three months of Arcadius’ quinquennial celebrations, the uneasy peace that had
existed for four years was broken by Maximus, who invaded Italy in May 387 and captured
Aquileia by surprise. Justina and her family fled from Milan and escaped across the Adriatic,
while Maximus occupied the rest of Italy. Theodosius for his part took over Illyricum as a pre-
cautionary measure and in September joined Justina at Thessalonica, where he undertook to
restore Valentinian and sealed the alliance by marrying the latter’s sister Galla, his first wife
Flaccilla having died the previous year. He spent the winter making preparations for the forth-
coming campaign. This opened in May 388 and was completely successful, Maximus being cap-
tured and killed by Theodosius’ soldiers near Aquileia on 28 August. There ensued a drastic
territorial rearrangement of the Western provinces. Valentinian became emperor in Gaul, Gra-
tian’s former share, under the tutelage of Arbogast, a Romanized and highly cultivated Frank
who was one of Theodosius’ best generals, while Theodosius added Valentinian’s former prov-
inces to his own dominions, making Milan his Western capital. From October 388 to April 391,
he resided there almost continuously, making only one long visit to Rome in company with the
infant Honorius ( June—September 389) and a shorter one to Verona (August-September 390).
In July 391 he returned to Constantinople, where, apart from a brief visit to Thessalonica in
October 392 to organize an expedition against brigands in Macedonia, he remained till May 394,
when he set out for the West again to do battle with Eugenius.
The minting pattern in this period is therefore somewhat different from that of the previ-
ous one. Only in the first few months of 387 were there still four imperial colleagues, for with
Maximus’ attack on Italy it must be assumed that Theodosius would have ceased to recognize
him and henceforth there would be only three. In the fall of 387, if not earlier, Theodosius also
acquired control of Valentinian’s Balkan mint of Thessalonica—Siscia was by now closed—while
Maximus took over the Italian ones of Aquileia, Milan, and Rome (spring 387—August 388).
From August 388, after the death of Maximus, the four mints of Thessalonica, Aquileia, Milan,
and Rome were in Theodosius’ hands, while Valentinian’s mints were henceforward those of
Trier, Lyon, and Arles.
A. Eastern Coinage (Pls. 4—6)
The solidi attributable to this period (80-1), once the quinquennial issue was exhausted,
involved a return to the seated Constantinopolis type, but with an older bust of Arcadius very
close to that of his VOT/V coinage. There are only three C’s in the Victoria Auccc(c) formula,
since Theodosius no longer recognized Maximus. Pearce did not distinguish these coins from
the earlier ones with three C’s and a much younger bust.
It was probably in 388, while Theodosius was still in the West, that the first tremisses in the
name of Arcadius were struck of the type that was to become customary in the East, with a
VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM legend and a Victory advancing right and holding wreath and
globus cruciger (RIC 232/75c). If they had waited till the return of Theodosius in 391, the types
of East and West would probably have been identical, but mint instructions sent from Milan
could easily have resulted in the Constantinopolitan design. The precise dating of individual
COINAGES OF 387-92 11]
TABLE 19
Arcadius: Constantinople, Silver Coins
Consular siliqua (385)
GLORIA ROMANORVM
Consular figure seated. CONS:
Miliarense (light) (390?)
GLORIA ROMANORVM Emp.
standing facing, looking r.,
w. r. hand raised and holding
globe in I.
(a) CON (bust on obv. to 1.) 234/85b
Siliqua
VOT/X/MVLT/XX in wreath
(a) CONS: (387) 232/77d,e
(b) CONS (392 and later) 235/87b
(c) CONS (403-8) —
specimens, apart from those with a star in the right field that belong to the years 403—8 (251),
is impossible. There were small changes in module (cf. 82-3) in their course of issue.
Two silver coinages can be attributed to this period (Table 19), one to 390 and the other to
392. The coin of 390 is a light miliarense with aGLORIA ROMANORVM legend and a novel
type showing the emperor standing with his right hand raised and holding a globe in his left
(163). (It was a variant of the normal miliarense type, going back to the Constantinian period,
in which the emperor held a labarum in his right hand and rested his left on a shield.) The bust
on the obverse faces left. The coin was struck in the names of both Theodosius and Arcadius,
and the form of the mint-mark, a simple CON, is no help in dating, but a similar coin was struck
at Milan, and Ulrich-Bansa suggested with much probability that the issue commemorated the
erection in 390 of a silver statue of Theodosius in Constantinople which is referred to by Mar-
cellinus comes (below, p. 115). The siliqua of 392 and later (RIC 235/87b; 157-60) has VOT/X/
MVLT/XX in a wreath, referring to Arcadius’ decennalia, with CONS beneath. This distinguishes
it from the earlier ones with CONS: of 387 (above, p. 102) and post-402 ones with CONS*
(below, p. 127). Arcadius’ Eastern silver issues were in fact very few (see Table 19), and this is
the only issue at all common today.
The accompanying bronze coins were of the same two denominations as before, but with
different legends and types. The minting pattern is set out in Tables 20-1. The AE 2 has
VIRTVS EXERCITI and shows the emperor, holding labarum and globe, spurning a captive,
while the AE 4 has SALVS REIPVBLICAE and a Victory dragging a captive to the left. Arcadius’
name is unbroken on both denominations. The AE 2 was struck in all Eastern mints in the names
of the three augusti, Theodosius, Valentinian II, and Arcadius, and at Constantinople also in
the name of Maximus (RIC 233/83d; LRBC 2180), which is proof that the type does not date
from the summer of 387 and allude to Theodosius’ forthcoming campaign against Maximus, as
one might have supposed, but originated a little earlier, probably in the autumn of 386. The
allusion would thus be to the triumph celebrated by Theodosius and Arcadius over the Greu-
112 ARCADIUS
TABLE 20
Arcadius: Eastern AE 2, 386—93
VIRTVS EXERCITI Emp. standing r., holding labarum and globe, spurning captive.
In several mints (Constantinople, Nicomedia, Alexandria) most coins in Arcadius’ name
were struck in the third officina, and this is the only one noted in LRBC, but coins here, or the
illustrations in Tolstoi or other sources, show reverses from other officinae also.
Constantinople
(a) +/CONSA-A 233/83c.1 84-6
(b) F/CONSA — A 233/83c.2 87-91
Nicomedia
(a) SMNA-—A 261/44c. 1-2 113
(b) /SMNA-—A 261/44c.3 ——
(c) palm/SMNI° 261/44c.4 —
Cyzicus
(a) SMKA-—A 245/25c 117-18
Heraclea
(a) SMHB 197/24c.1
(b) SMHB 197/24c.2
(c) */-SMHB 197/24c.3 129-30
Antioch
(a) ANTS (bust pearl
diademed) 291/63e 137-8
(b) ANTS (bust rosette
diademed) 291/63f
Alexandria
(a) ALEA —-T -— 302/18d 145-7
thungi (Ostrogoths), who had sustained a signal defeat at the hands of the imperial general
Promotus while attempting to cross the Danube, an event permanently commemorated by a
triumphal column in the Forum Tauri at Constantinople. But the issue continued after the
breach with Maximus, and the design must have been taken by many as referring to this usurper.
The Constantinople AE 2 (84-91) have an abnormal obverse legend, DNARCADIVS
PFAVGVSTVS (unbroken), apparently the better to fill out the space available and the only
exception during the reign to the ending P F AVG. The other mints achieved the same effect by
spacing the letters more widely. The AE 4 is of a type that continued after the accession of
Honorius in 393, but the later coins have a broken obverse legend instead of an unbroken one
like the AE 2.
B. Italian Mints (PI. 3)
Theodosius was in Italy, mainly at Milan, from October 388 to April 391, and Milan and
the other two Italian mints of Aquileia and Rome were under his control from 388 to 393. Then,
for a little over a year (summer 393—September 394), they were in the hands of Eugenius. From
394 to January 395 they were again under Theodosius, but the period was a very short one. The
COINAGES OF 387-92 113
TABLE 21
Arcadius: Eastern AE 4, 386—93
SALVS REIPVBLICAE Victory dragging captive |., ? sometimes in I. field
The obverse legend is unbroken. The type was continued 393—5, after Honorius’ accession,
with broken legend; see Table 25.
Constantinople
(a) F/CONSA—A 234/86c
Nicomedia
(a) SMNA-T 262/45c.1
(b) P/SMNA -T 262/45a.2—3
(c) P/SMNA —-T 262/45c.4
(d) +/SMNA-T 262/45c.5
(e) +/SMNA -[T 262/45c.6
(f) + in circle/SMNA —T 262/45c.7
(g) /SMNA -T 262/45c.8
Cyzicus
(a) P/SMKA—A 246/26c
Heraclea
(a)SMHA—A 198/26c
Antioch
(a) +/ANA—A
(b) +/ANTA—A
(c) PANTA—A
293/67d.6
293/67d.3—5
293/67.1—2
Alexandria
(a) P/ALEA —A 303/20c. 1
(b) +/ALEA—A 303/20c.2
(c) /ALEA—A 303/20c.3—-4
Thessalonica
(a) TEST 188/65c
coinage of the period (Table 22) has been gone over carefully by Pearce, Ulrich-Bansa, and
others, but there are details that still remain uncertain.
Milan was the main mint for gold, with only one brief issue in Rome, while Milan struck
also in silver and Aquileia and Rome in both silver and bronze.
Theodosius made no change in the solidus type by now customary at Milan, having two
seated emperors as reverse type and the legend VICTORIA AVGG, the mint-mark being MD
in the field and COM in the exergue. The coins were struck in the names of the three co-
emperors and were in type identical with that struck previously under Valentinian II (RIC 78/
8a—c). They cannot be satisfactorily separated from these, though Pearce believed that a distinc-
tion could be made on grounds of portraiture.
Pearce also attributed to this period a semissis in Arcadius’ name having a Victory with a
shield inscribed VOT/X/MVLT/XX and the same mint-mark (R/C IX.81/22; illus. UB pl. v.81),
but the very large bust shows that the decennalia must be those of Honorius and the coin one
114 ARCADIUS
TABLE 22
Coins of Italian Mints in Arcadius’ Name, 388—91
Solidus
VICTORIA AVGG Two
emps. seated |
(a) MD/COM 80/20c 70 V, Th
GLORIA ROMANORVM
Roma and Cpolis seated hold-
ing shield w. VOT/X/MVLT/
XX
(a) ROMOB 132/60
Tremassis
VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM
Victory adv. r.
(a) MD/COM 81/23c.2 268
Miliarense (light)
GLORIA ROMANORVM
Emp. raising r. hand and
holding globe in I.
(a) AQPS 106/56b V
(b) MDPS 82/25b
VIRTVS ROMANORVM
Emp. standing w. globe and
labarum
(a) MDPS
Siliqua
VOT/X/MVLT/XX in wreath
(a) RT 132/62c V, Th
Half-siliqua
VICTORIA AVGGG Victory
adv. I.
(a) AQPS 106/57b Th
AE 3
SPES REIPVBLICAE Emp.
spurning captive
(a) Rx 133/63c V, Th
AE 4
SALVS REIPVBLICAE
Victory dragging captive l.
(a) AQx 106/58c as
(b) Rx 133/64c.1,2 eae 8
(c) Rx 133/64c.3-4 pad 9
Also at all Eastern mints
(Table 26)
COINAGES OF 387-92 115
of 402.
The tremissis with Victory advancing right, with or without a globe under her foot and the
same mint-mark (RIC IX.78/11c, 81/23c), did on the other hand start in this period, when the
denomination was continued by Theodosius after the downfall of Maximus, though only speci-
mens with a relatively small bust of Arcadius can be placed so early.
The only other mint at which gold was struck was at Rome, and that a quite exceptional
issue of the greatest rarity which Pearce dates, quite convincingly, to the summer of 389, when
Theodosius was in the city with Honorius from June to September (RIC [X.112—13). The reverse
type has Roma and Constantinopolis seated holding a shield inscribed VOT/X/MVLT/XX (for
Theodosius) on a coin struck in the name of Arcadius (RIC IX.132/60) and VOT/XV/MVLT/XX
on one struck in that of Valentinian (RJC 1X.132/61). The mint-mark is the quite unusual
ROMOB. Each coin is known only from a unique specimen strikingly different from each other
in style. Others probably once existed with different combinations of co-emperors and shield
inscriptions. Theodosius’ decennalia had been antedated to 387 but were in fact appropriate to
389, and Valentinian was on the point of completing his fifteenth year of reign.
Very little silver was struck. There is a vota siliqua of Rome, but it is rare and probably a
special issue accompanying Theodosius’ visit to the city in 389. It has the inscription VOT/X/
MV.LT/XX in a wreath, the pellet between V and L in MVLT being presumably the equivalent
of one that on other denominations can qualify the mint-mark (R-P, etc.). Since the coins were
struck in Theodosius’s name at three officinae (RB, RT, RQ) and in Valentinian’s only at the
second (RB) and in Arcadius’ only at the third (RT), the coins are better assigned to 388/92 than
383/87. The miliarenses and half-siliquae struck at Aquileia and Milan are denominations struck
only for ceremonial purposes. The coins of Aquileia (mint-mark AQPS) are a miliarense with a
standing emperor raising his hand and holding a globe in his left (rev. as 163), the other a half-
siliqua with a Victory advancing to the left holding a wreath and palm. The first is known also
in the name of Valentinian and the second in that of Theodosius, but probably both were struck
in the names of all three emperors.
Miliarenses struck in Arcadius’ name at Milan all have the same mint-mark (MDPS), but can
be dated by the changing size of his bust on the obverses. On early coins this is relatively small,
barely reaching the bottom line of the circle of the inscription. On slightly later coins it is larger,
reaching to the middle of the letters, and on the latest coins of all it is very large indeed, almost
touching the outer edge of the coin. The intermediate series can be dated to 393/4 by the fact
of the same type having been minted by Eugenius, so those with the smaller bust must be of
388/92 and those with the large bust are all effectively after 395.
The coins with small bust are of two types. One with a GLORIA ROMANORVM legend
shows the emperor standing, raising his right hand and holding a globe in his left (RIC [X.82/
25b; illus. in UB pl. 1v.37). It has a counterpart in one of Theodosius and belongs to 388/94,
perhaps indeed to 390, for Ulrich-Bansa (1949, p. 111) points out that it may have been struck
to commemorate the erection of a column bearing a silver statue of Theodosius at Constanti-
nople in that year (Chron. Marcellini, a. 390) and indeed represent its appearance. The other
coin (RIC —; Bernareggi 1984) has an almost identical portrait but the legend VIRTVS RO-
MANORVM and a standing emperor, not nimbate, holding a globe and a labarum. Bernareggi
proposed to assign it to Theodosius’ stay at Milan in the winter of 394, on the ground that the
conspicuous Christogram in the labarum might allude to his defeat of Eugenius, but the Chris-
togram was a commonplace on coins at this time and the size of the bust requires a date before
393/4.
116 ARCADIUS
TABLE 23
Coins of Gallic Mints in Arcadius’ Name, 388—92
For detailed breakdown of the AE 4, see text.
Bastien |
(ij RIC IX LRBC 1987 Cat. |
Solidus
VICTORIA AVGG Two emps. |
seated, nimbate |
(a) TR/COM 30/90c
(b) LD/COM 50/38c
Tremissis
VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM
Victory adv. I. w.
wreath and palm
(a) TR/COM 31/92b
Siliqua
VRBS ROMA Roma seated I.
(a) TRPS 31/95c
(b) LVGPS 51/43c 201
AE 3
GLORIA ROMANORVM
Emp. dragging captive I.
(a) TRS 32/96c
Aes 4
VICTORIA AVGGG Victory
adv. I.
(a) TR 32/97c.1 200
32/98c
(b) TRP 32/97c.2
(c) LVGP (S) 52/44d 225(P), 202
228(S)
(d) P(S,T)CON 70/30e 203
The bronze coins consist of AE 3 struck at Rome only and of AE 4 struck at Rome, Aquileia,
and Thessalonica as well as in Gallic mints and in the East. Dating depends on the fact that both
types were still being struck in the name of Valentinian II and in most mints carried on after
393 in the name of Honorius.
The AE 3 of Rome has for legend SPES REIPVBLICAE and for type the standing figure
of the emperor holding a labarum and globe, with his right foot on a captive (illus. RIC pl. 8.12).
The coins in Arcadius’ name were struck in all officinae, so although the coin is rather rare, it
was a substantive issue.
The AE 4 has for legend SALVS REIPVBLICAE and for type a Victory dragging a captive
to the left, with a Christogram in the left field. It was struck over many years in virtually all
mints in the Empire, so that it is one of the commonest coins of the late fourth century (Pls. 4—
6, passim). At Thessalonica its issue apparently stopped before Honorius’ accession in 393, and
GALLIC COINAGES, 388-92 117
while coins in the names of Valentinian and Theodosius were struck indifferently at officinae A,
B, and A, those of Arcadius are limited to Officina I’. At Rome and Aquileia, on the other hand,
the coinage began before Valentinian’s death but continued under Honorius (see below, p. 131).
C. Gallic Mints, 388—92 (PI. 8)
Valentinian II had at his disposal the three Gallic mints of Trier, Lyon, and Arles. His coin-
age consisted mainly of solidi, siliquae, and AE 4, all of them minted in the names of Theodosius
and Arcadius as well as his own, the siliquae and AE 4 on a generous scale but the solidi in
Arcadius’ name only marginally. There is also a rare AE 3 of ‘Trier which was struck in Arcadius’
name but only briefly in 388. Like the other denominations, it continued a type used in the
Balkan and Italian mints Valentinian had possessed earlier. The AE usually but not invariably
have unbroken obverse legends and very young busts, while there are broken legends and older
busts on the siliquae. Valentinian also struck other denominations—a rare sesquisolidus, trem-
isses, light miliarenses—but although there are Theodosian equivalents in each case, none of
Arcadius are known. They may, however, yet come to light. Recorded denominations are set out
in Table 23.
The solidi are of the two-seated-emperors type customary in the West and require no com-
ment. The dating of the tremissis, with a Victory advancing left and TR/COM, is uncertain.
Pearce attributed it to 388/92, but while it exists also for Theodosius, it is not known for Valen-
tinian and it does have a Eugenius counterpart (R/C 33/103). This would suggest a dating to
392/4, but the denomination had already been struck at Trier by Maximus and the earlier dating
is quite possible, with a specimen in Valentinian’s name yet to be found.
The Lyon and Trier siliquae have on the reverse a seated Roma and the legend VRBS
ROMA, with LVGPS (201) or TRPS in the exergue. The AE 3, minted only at Trier (TRS), have
a GLORIA ROMANORVM legend and as type the emperor dragging a captive to the right.
The AE 4, struck at Lyon, ‘Trier, and Arles, have as legend VICTORIA AVGGG and as type
a Victory advancing left with wreath and palm. There are varieties of mint-mark and legend-
breaks as follows:
TRP ————— R-IA RIC 32/97c.1; LRBC 164
Trier
RI-A RIC 32/98c; LRBC 170; 200
TR
R-IA RIC 32.97c.2; LRBC 167
Lyon LVGP RIC 52/44d; LRBC 392; 202
Arles P (S,T)CON RIC 70/30e; LRBC 566; 203
118 ARCADIUS
IV. Coinages of 392-395
In 392 the political arrangements of 388 broke down when Valentinian II, chafing under
Arbogast’s restraints and apparently prevented by him from trying to recover Italy, was either
murdered or, more probably, committed suicide at Vienne on 15 May. There ensued in Gaul a
three-month interregnum that lasted until 22 August, when Arbogast proclaimed a new em-
peror Eugenius, a court official who had formerly been a professor of rhetoric and, like Arbo-
gast himself, was a pagan. Eugenius disclaimed all responsibility for Valentinian’s death and
made every effort to secure recognition by Theodosius, continuing to recognize both him and
Arcadius on his coins and even minting those in the name of Arcadius on an exceptionally large
scale (Pearce 1934a, 114). Even when Theodosius created Honorius augustus in January 393
and refused to accept Eugenius as consul the same month, nominating another person in his
place, Eugenius did not give up hope, though his actions, notably his occupation of Italy in 393
and the encouragement he gave to pagans, were not calculated to favor his chances. Not till 394
did hostilities finally commence, and at a hard-fought battle on the River Frigidus, north of
Aquileia on the approaches to Italy, Theodosius won a decisive victory (6 September). Eugenius
was killed by his captors, and Arbogast committed suicide. Theodosius was joined by the young
Honorius, and at Rome the boy was presented to the Senate as the future ruler of the West.
Theodosius was perhaps already ill and foresaw his approaching end. On returning to Milan he
took to his bed, and died on 17 January 395. He was the last emperor who could be said in any
real sense to have ruled the entire Empire.
The coins issued in these years were for the most part those struck by Theodosius, initially
in Italy as well as in the East. Since he never recognized Eugenius, he admitted to only two
augusti between May 392 and January 393, but to three again between this date and January
395. For most of the time, Eugenius continued to mint in the names of both Theodosius and
Arcadius as well as in his own, and in 393—4 he even minted a few in the name of Honorius,
but the coins in Arcadius’ name for the most part carried on the types and legends of those
minted under Valentinian II and cannot be distinguished from them.
A. Coins Struck by Theodosius
The coins of this period are in part dated, for Arcadius celebrated his decennalia in January
392. The solidi of Constantinople issued prior to this date are ones with a seated Constantino-
polis having three C’s and a slightly larger bust, but they cannot be distinguished from those of
387/8. They were followed by solidi having a similar bust on the obverse and on the reverse a
seated Constantinopolis holding instead of a globe a shield inscribed VOT/X/MVLT/XV (RIC
231/71c, d; 155-6). Pearce assumed that the anniversary was that of Theodosius and that the
coins should be dated 389 (or 387), but the type is found only for Theodosius and Arcadius, not
for Valentinian II, as would surely have been the case if they were really of 387/9, and the bust
is a much older one than that of Arcadius’ consular coins of 385. There is a further reason for
assigning them to a later date—the existence of an accompanying issue of Theodosius with both
CCC and CC. The latter is very rare, and Pearce included it only as a footnote in RIC (p. 231
note to 71b; off. numeral H), believing the only specimen known to him to be a die-sinker’s
error. There is another specimen at Dumbarton Oaks, however, from Officina B (Bellinger et al.
1964, no. 276), and there is no good reason to regard the inscription as incorrect. The sole
period of Theodosius’ reign when there were only two co-emperors was the six months between
the arrival at Constantinople of the news of Valentinian II’s death and the accession of Honorius,
COINAGES OF 392-5 119
that is, July 392—January 393. Much of this period is occupied by the coins of the class next
to be discussed, but it seems reasonable to suppose that the VOT X series were minted in the
first half of the year, first with three C’s (January—July) and then briefly with two (July—
August?). Coins with CC in the name of Arcadius may also have been struck, though none are
recorded.
These coins were followed by a series which has been one of the most discussed in the
coinage of the period, the solidi in the names of Theodosius and Arcadius, and eventually of
Honorius, having the letters SM in the field and COMOB or COMOB: in the exergue (161-2;
varieties in Table 41). The reverse type shows an emperor standing right, holding a labarum
and a globe surmounted by a Victory and spurning a fallen enemy, the inscription being VIC-
TORIA AVCC or AVCCC. Their date is shown by the linking of these particular emperors. The
time interval is one in which there is a complete absence of solidi with CONOB, and if one
makes CONOB a sine qua non of products of the mint of Constantinople, there can be no such
products for the last years of Theodosius’ reign. But coins recognizably made by Constantino-
politan workmen, stylistically identical with those of the preceding years and marked with the
customary officina numerals used at the Constantinopolitan mint, make up the bulk of this new
class with SM in the field and COMOB in the exergue. The obvious solution would be to attrib-
ute these coins to Constantinople, but the situation is complicated by the fact that they are
sometimes die-linked with Thessalonican solidi of the type used in the previous issue having a
seated Constantinopolis and CONCORDIA AVGG inscription (RIC [X.188 notes to nos. 64a, f).
These are without specific mint-mark, as is often the case with Thessalonican gold, but they have
all the usual features of Thessalonican coins: same style of bust, absence of officina numeral,
and a G (with lip) instead of the Constantinopolitan C. That they are the work of Thessalonican
workmen may be taken as certain.
Two alternative explanations have been put forward to account for these phenomena. (A
third, a proposal to interpret SM as referring to Selymbria, a small town some 60 miles west of
Constantinople on the Sea of Marmara, was suggested by Kent [1956b, 202] but subsequently
silently abandoned [Kent 1978, text to no. 724].) One explanation is to interpret SM as Sirmium,
which was Elmer’s solution (Elmer 1930) and generally accepted by Pearce and most later schol-
ars (e.g., Hendy 1972a, 128 note 5; 1985, 394), though in some cases with the caveat that it “is
not without difficulty” (Kent 1978, caption to no. 724). COMOB is the normal mark of a Western
mint; letters in the field were in the West the normal way of indicating a mint (MD, AQ, etc.);
and SM for Sirmium is only at first glance surprising—one’s immediate expectation would be
SR—and is in fact possible, for Lugdunum was abbreviated LD and not LG. Elmer’s explanation
of the Constantinopolitan and Thessalonican features of the coinage was that Sirmium was
made the base for Theodosius’ campaign against Eugenius and the personnel of these mints
had been transferred there to work for the army authorities. After the success of the campaign
and Theodosius’ death in January 395, the mint was closed, and the workmen returned to their
respective homes.
The alternative is to interpret SM as Sacra Moneta, which is its normal meaning (SMAQ,
SMN, etc.), and to leave the coins to the two mints, Constantinople and Thessalonica, implied
by their styles and officina organizations. COMOB would have been substituted for CONOB to
bring the coinage into line with that of the West, which used COMOB in the exergue, while SM
would have emphasized the official and “sacred” character of the solidi in contrast to the irreg-
ular issues of Maximus and subsequently Eugenius, the Western “usurpers.”
This was Ulrich-Bansa’s solution to the problem (Ulrich-Bansa 1949, 156-9; in NC 1952,
120 ARCADIUS
155-6, reviewing RIC IX; 1966, 113-15), and it seems to us the only satisfactory one. The
attribution of the coins to Sirmium, while immediately attractive, is incompatible with the his-
torical evidence so far as it is known to us. It may well be that Theodosius’ campaign was even-
tually organized from Sirmium, though there is no positive evidence for this, but the coinage
started well before any military preparations are likely to have begun, and its attribution to
Sirmium would mean leaving Constantinople with no gold coinage at all for the second half of
392 and the whole of 393. Since the dating of his legislation shows Theodosius to have been
resident in the city almost without interruption, this seems out of the question. The coins were
struck in Constantinople and Thessalonica, and the die-linkages and occasional mingling of
Constantinopolitan and Thessalonican styles that impressed Pearce resulted from the fact that
all minting of gold was under the control of the staff of the count of the sacred largesses and
dies and workmen did sometimes get transferred from place to place (cf. above, p. 51).
The inscription and type of the new coinage require little comment, for they could hardly
have reflected imperial policy more clearly. From a tranquilly seated Constantinopolis and an
inscription proclaiming the “Harmony of the Augusti,” there is a sharp passage to a triumphant
TABLE 24
Arcadius: Eastern AE 2, 393—5
GLORIA ROMANORVM Enpp. standing facing, looking r., holding labarum and globe
An alleged coin of this type from Thessalonica (T 94 from S 1.105/35) is probably an error.
Constantinople
(a) CONSA—-A 235/88b. 1-3
(b) CONS? 235/88b.4
(c) + +/CONSI-A 235/88b.5-6
(d) (palm)/CONSI 235/88b.7
Nicomedia
(a) SMNA-A 263/46b. 1-2
(b) *¥/SMNA—A 263/46b.3
Cyzicus
(a) SMKA—A 246/27b
Heraclea
(a) SMHA-B 199/27b. 1-2
(b) */SMHA-B 199/27b.3-4
Antioch
(a) ANTA — A (pear! diadem) 294/68c
(b) ANTA — A (rosette diadem) 294/68d
Alexandria
(a) ALEA — B (pearl diadem) 304/21b
(b) ALEA — B (rosette diadem) 304/21c
EASTERN COINAGES, 393-5 12]
TABLE 25
Arcadius: Eastern AE 3 and 4, 393—5
The AE 4 differs from that in Table 21 only in having the obverse legend broken, save at
Alexandria where it remained unbroken, but some coins so characterized share the mint-mark
‘/ALEA with AE 4 of Honorius.
AE 3 GLORIA ROMANORVM
Emp. on horseback r.
Constantinople
(a) CONS 236/89b
Nicomedia
(a) SMNA-B 263/47b
Cyzicus
(a) SMKA-—A 247/29c
Antioch
(a) ANTA — A (pearl diadem) 294/69c
(b) ANTA — A (rosette diadem) 294/69d
Alexandria
(a) ALET 304/22b
AE 4 SALVS REIPVBLICAE
Victory dragging captive I.
Constantinople
(a) CONSA —-A 236/90b
Nicomedia
(a) SMNA (263/46b)
(b) /SMNA =
Cyzicus
(a) SMKA (247/30b)
Antioch
(a) +/ANTT 295/70b
Alexandria
(a) /ALEA (304/23b)
general (Theodosius) savagely kicking a fallen enemy (Eugenius), with a “Victory of the Emper-
ors” inscription. The design was not novel—it had been used, though without the Victory, for
the largest Eastern denomination of bronze struck in the names of all the senior emperors
between 383 and 388—but it was wholly appropriate to the occasion. Its adoption on the solidus
made its fortune, for although it was abandoned in the East in 395, it carried on at all Western
mints as the dominant type for the next thirty years. Coins with the two C’s and Victoria divided
VICTORI — A must have been issued between September or October 392, after the news of
Valentinian II’s death reached Constantinople and Theodosius had begun to plan his future
program, and the following January, when a third emperor was co-opted.
Coins with three C’s must have been issued after Honorius’ accession on 17 January 393.
Since Arcadius was left behind in the capital when Theodosius campaigned in the West, its issue
probably carried on, though in reduced quantities, through 394 and down to the arrival of the
news of Theodosius’ death in early 395. There presumably followed, down to the introduction
of the three-quarter facing bust later in the year, coins with Victoria divided VICTOR — IA and
122 ARCADIUS
an inscription ending with two C’s, but these are known only for Honorius (744).
No Eastern silver in Arcadius’ name can be specifically attributed to the years 393—5, though
the VOT/X/MVLI/XX siliquae with mint-mark CONS inaugurated in 393 presumably contin-
ued to be struck. But a new type of AE 2, with GLORIA ROMANORVM legend and a standing
figure of the emperor looking right with labarum and globe, replaced the emperor-spurning-
captive type of 386/93, and an AE 3 coin was introduced showing the emperor on horseback
raising his right hand. It seems likely that this represented a colossal equestrian statue of Theo-
dosius which we know from later sources adorned the Forum ‘Tauri, though the date of its
erection is not recorded (Lehmann 1959, 44, with Mango’s criticisms and her reply on pp. 351—
7). No change was made in the type of the AE 4 (SALVS REIPVBLICAE and emperor dragging
captive left), but Arcadius’ name appears on the obverse in broken instead of unbroken form,
the role of junior emperor being now taken over by Honorius. Details of the coinages are set
out in Tables 24—5.
TABLE 26
Western Coinages in Arcadius’ Name, 392-5
B = Bastien 1987
Under Eugenius, 392-4
(in Italy, 393-4)
No gold, but in Gaul the Urbs
Roma AR, the Gloria Romanorum
AE 3, and the Victoria Auggg AE 4
continued as under Val. II (see
Table 16). The AE 4 changed to a
broken obv. legend for Arcadius,
presumably in Jan. 393 (Honorius’
elevation as augustus).
VICTORIA AVGGG Victory RIC 52/44e;
adv. |. Broken obv. leg. LVGP
(395)
As last, but S/LVGP
Miliarense GLORIA ROMANORYVM. Emp. 1 S3$
standing w. raised hand. RIC 82/3 1b;
MDPS UB pl. 1v.37
Siliqua VIRTVS ROMANORVM Roma T 60;
seated 1. MDPS RIC 83/32b;
UB pl. v1.66
Under Theodosius, 394-5
Siliqua Milan type as above Same refs.
AE 4 Lyon type as above, but V/LVGP.
(395)
EASTERN COINAGES, 395-400 123
B. Coins Struck by Eugenius
Eugenius was in occupation of the Gallic mints from August 392 to September 394 and of
those in Italy from the spring of 393 onward. In Gaul he minted at Trier and Lyon but not at
Arles, and in Italy at Milan and Aquileia but not at Rome. Since he recognized Theodosius, he
continued striking coins in his name and, less systematically, in that of Arcadius, and even in
that of Honorius after January 393. But most of these coins continued types already being
minted in 388/92, and the coins of Eugenius’ reign cannot be separated from these save in the
few cases where die-links with Eugenius’ own coins can be found, or by Arcadius being provided
with a broken instead of an unbroken legend, or by the coins matching a new type or a variety
of mint-mark introduced under Eugenius.
The coinages of these years in the name of Arcadius are set out in Table 26. It is likely that
most of the denominations listed in a previous section as products of the Gallic mints in the
period 388/92 continued under Eugenius. The only later coins which can be positively identified
are in the AE 4 of Lyon, where the type with VICTORIA AVGGG and a Victory advancing left
occurs with an unbroken instead of a broken legend and with an S in the left field, the latter
being struck also for Honorius and datable to 394. The only Italian coins in Arcadius’ name
attributed to this period by RIC are silver denominations of Milan, a light miliarense with the
emperor standing—it is known for both Eugenius and Arcadius—and a new type of siliqua, not
issued under Valentinian II, with the legend VIRTVS ROMANORVM and a seated Roma, this
being known for Theodosius, Arcadius, and Eugenius. It replaced the vota siliqua of Valentinian
II, which would have been inappropriate for Eugenius, and since it was to be continued after
395 under Honorius, it is the commonest Western siliqua struck in Arcadius’ name (192-4).
Specimens struck before 395 cannot be satisfactorily distinguished from those struck after it,
and the latter no doubt form the bulk of the coinage. If it were not for the existence of the
miliarense, indeed, one would hesitate to attribute the earliest siliquae of the type to Eugenius’
time, since one would expect him to have suspended issues in Arcadius’ name after his occupa-
tion of Italy.
V. Eastern Coins, 395-401
A new coinage was ordered sometime in the second half of 395, after Arcadius had re-
turned to Constantinople, but that of the preceding years continued at least for a few months.
This is proved both by the solidi with inscriptions ending CC and Victoria divided VICTOR —
IA and by the existence of AE 2 on which Honorius’ name on the obverse is broken (LRBC
2204), instead of unbroken as previously (LRBC 2188). LRBC attributes similar coins to Arcadius
(LRBC 2203), though in this case they cannot be distinguished from those struck before Theo-
dosius’ death (LRBC 2187). It is the new coinage, however, that is important. It was in part a
consequence of the constitution issued at Milan on 12 April ordering that the maior pecunia or
decargyrus, that is, effectively the AE 2, should be withdrawn, leaving only the centenionalis in
circulation (CTh IX.23.2: “Centenionalem tantum nummum in conversatione tractarl praecepi-
mus, maioris pecuniae figuratione submota. Nullus igitur decargyrum nummum alio audeat
commutare, sciens fisco eandem pecuniam vindicandam, quae in publica potuerit conversatione
deprehendi.” “We command that only the centenionalis be used as currency, and that the coining
of larger money be abolished. No one, therefore, shall venture to exchange the decargyrum for
another denomination, knowing that the aforesaid money, which can be seized if found in public
use, must be confiscated to the fisc.”). This was addressed to the praetorian prefect Dexter and
124 ARCADIUS
TABLE 27
Arcadius: Eastern AE, 395-401
The AE 4 continued to 402, as specimens occur with the name of Theodosius II. A star
after an LRBC numeral indicates that the obverse legend is unbroken.
AE 3 AE 4
VIRTVS — EXERCITI CONCOR — DIA AVG
Emp. crowned by Victory Cross
Constantinople
(a) CONSA-—A
Nicomedia
(a) SMNA-B
(b) */SMNA —-B
(c) /SMNA-B
Cyzicus
(a) SMKA-—A
Heraclea
(a) SMHA-—B
(b) /SMHA —B
Antioch
(a) ANTA-A 2795* (ANA)
(pearl diadem) 2796* (ANA)
(b) ANTA-—A
(rosette diadem)
Alexandria
(a) ALEA
therefore effective for Italy, Africa, and Illyricum, but the dropping of AE 2 in the East shows
that it must have had its counterpart in that half of the Empire. The AE 2 was in part replaced
by a new type of AE 3, rather heavier than the old and perhaps raised in value. The authoriza-
tion of the continuance of the centenionalis evidently included the authorization of its half, for
both AE 3 and AE 4 continued to be struck.
The introduction of the new AE 3 was accompanied by a much greater change in the ap-
pearance of the solidus, minted mainly at Constantinople (207-17) but on a small scale at Thes-
salonica also. The obverse type breaks away from the traditional profile bust in favor of a three-
quarter facing one showing the emperor in military costume, wearing helmet, diadem, and
breastplate, holding over his shoulder a spear and in his left hand a shield decorated with a
design usually showing an emperor on horseback spearing a fallen enemy, though varied with
one simply showing the emperor on horseback with his arm raised as on the AE 3 of the preced-
ing coinage. The type was based on that introduced by Constantius II for his last solidus coinage
nearly half a century before. It was to survive in the East with only slight modifications for almost
the next century and a half and was eventually to be adopted in the West also. The reverse shows
Constantinopolis seated, but her throne is now a plain one, without lions’ heads on either side,
EASTERN COINAGE, 402 125
and her globe is surmounted by a Victory. The legend is the traditional CONCORDIA AVCC.
On Constantinopolitan issues the legend is followed by an officina numeral, and the mint-mark
has reverted from COMOB to the traditional CONOB.
The same type of solidus was minted at Thessalonica, the coins being distinguished from
those of Constantinople by their cruder style, by the breastplate being ornamented by a Chris-
togram, by the reverse reading AVGG instead of AVCC, and by the absence of officina numeral
(223). A coin with the same features was struck in the name of Honorius (below, p. 210; 756).
The AE of the years 395—401 is set out in Table 27. The new AE 3 has as reverse type a
standing emperor being crowned by a standing Victory, with the legend VIRTVS EXERCITI.
The module is ca. 18 mm and the weight ca. 2.5 g. With it went a new AE 4 (ca. 12 mm, ca. 0.7
g), the reverse inscription on this being CONCORDIA AVG, with only one G, and the type being
a cross, the first time the sacred symbol was used as the main design on a coin. LRBC also
attributes (2222) to Arcadius and Constantinople (CONx) at this period an AE 4 with a CON-
CORDIA AVG legend and a facing Victory holding a wreath in each hand. Since there is no
corresponding issue for Honorius, and coins of the same type were later struck for Theodosius
II (Table 33), the existence of such coins of Arcadius seems doubtful. The AE 3 was minted at
all the Eastern mints save Thessalonica in the names of both Arcadius and Honorius, and the
AE 4 at all save Thessalonica and Heraclea.
VI. Eastern Coinage, 402
The Constantinopolitan solidi of the last years of Arcadius’ reign (see Table 14) are of a
single reverse type, with a seated Victory inscribing XX/XXX on a shield, and have Nova spes
Retpublicae as legend. They form two groups, one with a star in the left field (250) and the other
without (237). The ones with a star date from Theodosius’ assumption of the consulship in
January 403, but it is not immediately apparent whether the others date from the accession of
Theodosius on 10 January 402, or from his birth on 10 April 401, or from the coronation of his
mother Eudoxia on 9 January 400 when an independent coinage was inaugurated in her name.
The inscription is one that normally celebrated the birth of an heir to the throne, but Arcadius
had come to the throne in 383 and the vota numeral is therefore more suited to 402. Since solidi
without a star, however, exist also for Theodosius (295-6), and he participated in the AE 3
coinage (297, 299-302), it seems clear that the new coinage should be dated from Theodosius’
accession in January 402.
The Constantinopolitan solidus of the new coinage (237) retained the three-quarter facing
bust introduced in 395, and the reverse type has just been described. It is one more familiar on
semisses than on solidi, but the semissis version has a Christogram in the field. The coinage was
perhaps initially intended as a special issue, for it is without officina numerals, but specimens
are today quite common, and it was clearly in general circulation. The Thessalonican equivalent
(242), instead of adopting the seated Victory of Constantinople, continued the seated Constan-
tinopolis type of 395-401 but with a GGG legend (with square G's) that took account of the
accession of Theodosius II. This fact, coupled with the absence of a star in the field, dates the
coin to 402. A coin with CC, COMOB, and a star in the field (MJRB V52a) must be, as Hahn
surmises, a mule with a later type.
No semissis of this period is known, and its tremisses cannot be separated from those of
395-402. They undoubtedly were being struck, for ones with a star exist that must date after
402. No silver coins can be attributed with certainty to this period. The only bronze coins are
AE 3, as before, and they are unusual in having as obverse type the three-quarter facing bust
126 ARCADIUS
TABLE 28
Arcadius: Eastern AE, 402-8
CONCORDIA AVGG As in preceding period
Cpolis seated. (Obv.: armored
bust three-quarters facing)
Constantinople
(a) CONSA-A
Nicomedia
(a) SMNA-B
Cyzicus
(a) SMKA -B
Antioch
(a) ANTT or S
GLORIA ROMANORVM CONCORDIA — AVGGG
Three figures. (Obv.: star to Cross
LRBC Cat.
Constantinople
(a) CONSA 2221)
Nicomedia
(a) SMNA-B 2451
Cyzicus
(a) SMKA —-B 2594,2597
(unbroken
rev. leg.)
Heraclea
(a) SMHA—B 1996
Antioch
(a) ANTA—S 2806
Alexandria
(a) ALEA —B 2927
hitherto reserved for the solidus, as it was to be in the future. The reverse inscription is CON-
CORDIA AVGG and the type is a seated figure of Constantinople facing, as on the preceding
class of solidus. The coins were struck in the names of all three co-emperors but in only four of
the Eastern mints, there being none of Thessalonica, Heraclea, or Alexandria. The references
to them are set out in Table 28.
EASTERN AND WESTERN COINAGES, 393-408 127
VII. Eastern Coinage, 403-8
The solidi struck from January 403 to Arcadius’ death in May 408 are of the same type as
those of 402, but differ from them in having a star in the left reverse field in honor of Theodos-
ius’ assumption of the consulship. They are only known for the mint of Constantinople and
were struck in the names of all three co-emperors. The Constantinopolitan ones (250), unlike
those of the preceding issue, normally have an officina numeral, most frequently B, S, or 0,
following the inscription. The type was not adopted at Thessalonica, which retained the plain,
seated Constantinopolis of the preceding period.
No semisses are known of these years, but there is a tremissis of Arcadius with a star in the
right field that certainly belongs to them (251). It has a VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM legend
and a finely designed Victory advancing to the right, looking backward, and holding a wreath
and globus cruciger. A small cross decorates the epaulet on Arcadius’ right shoulder. The coin
must be rare, for the specimen at Dumbarton Oaks is the only one that seems to be known.
There is at Dumbarton Oaks a cast forgery (252) of a siliqua with VOT/X/MVLT/XX in
wreath and a star after CONS in the exergue. No original seems to have been recorded, but one
must have existed. The star dates the coin to 403-8, and the vota would be appropriate for
Honorius. The coins without star (157—60) have already been discussed.
The bronze coinage consists, as before, of AE 3 and AE 4. The latter continues the previous
type, the AE 3 is new. This has on the reverse three standing imperial figures, Arcadius and
Honorius on the outside and a diminutive Theodosius II between them. Since the design and
the GLORIA ROMANORVM legend fill the entire flan, the star that characterizes the coinage
of the period is on the obverse, behind the imperial bust. The AE 4 are of the same type as the
preceding issue but the legend is modified to CONCORDIA AVGGG to take account of the
three co-emperors in whose names the coins were struck. The mints include Heraclea, despite
the absence there of any AE 3. There is no star, perhaps because of the small size of the flans,
so the coins cannot be distinguished from those of 402 unless the end of the reverse legend can
be read, which is not always the case. T 77, for example, which Tolstoi assumed to read AVG,
may well have read AVGGG, as LRBC 2927. The issues are included in Table 28.
VIII. Western Coins Struck in the Name of Arcadius, 393—408
In spite of frequent political tensions between the courts of Milan/Ravenna and Constanti-
nople over the years 395-408, Honorius was reasonably punctilious in striking coins in the name
of his elder brother. After 402 he even struck some in the name of Theodosius II. But nearly
all the coins are either undated or are dated ambiguously, so that some may be substantially
earlier, and it is impossible in other cases to make any distinction between coins struck in the
period 393-5 and those of 395-408. An important dating link for one group of vota coins is
the existence of miliarenses from Ravenna and Rome having as reverse types VOT/X/MVLI/XX
in a wreath, for the Ravenna mint-mark of the first shows them to have been struck after 402
and the vota to have referred to Honorius, not Arcadius, and the Rome mint of the second ties
them in with Honorius’ stay at Rome for his “triumph” in 404.
An aureus with the usual inscription (VICTORIA ROMANORVM) and type (Victory ad-
vancing left with wreath and palm), with MD in the field and COMOB in the exergue, was seen
by Grierson in 1980. It was unknown to Ulrich-Bansa. The large, mature head, a little smaller
than those on the coinage after 400, dates it probably to the 390s.
128 ARCADIUS
TABLE 29
Western AV in Arcadius’ Name, 394—408
Aureus (394-408) |
VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM Victory i Private coll.
advancing I. w. wreath and palm
Solidus (394/408) |
VICTORIA AVGGG Emp. spurning captive
(a) MD/COMOB (394-402) 29 265-7 | RIC 84/35b; UB
pl. v.51, v1.60
(b) RV/COMOB (402-8) 30-1 272
(c) RM/COMOB (404) — 269
(d) AQ/COMOB (404/5?) — a UB. pl. E.p.
(e) AR/COMOB (407?) — — Lafaurie 1969
Solidus (Rome?) 397 Facing obv. bust
VOTA PLVRIA Roma and Cpolis seated
holding shield w. VOT/XV/MVLT/XX
(a) COMOB — — PCR I11.1573
Semissts
VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM Victory seated
inscr. VOT/X/MVLT/XX on shield
(a) MD/COMOB (402 or 404) — UB pl. v1.81
(pp. 209-10)
(b) RM/COMOB (404) — UB pl. H.a.
(p. 209)
Tremissis
VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM Victory adv. r.
w. wreath and gl. cr.
(a) MD/COM (388-402) — 268 RIC 81/23c.2; UB
pl. v.54, v1.62
(b) RV/COM (402-8) 45-6
(c) RM/COM (404?) 44
(d) TR/COM (388-95) = RIC 31/92b
The solidi (Table 29) continue the last type struck under Theodosius, with a profile head
on the obverse and on the reverse the emperor spurning a captive. All have COMOB in the
exergue, with the mint indicated by appropriate letters in the field. The VICTORIA AVGGG
legend, with three G's, was continued over the whvle period 395—408, despite there being only
two augusti between 395 and 402, so that the presence of three G’s on solidi of Milan does not
provide grounds for their precise dating, as some scholars have supposed (Lafaurie 1958, 290—
6; Richard et al. 1972).
By far the commonest coins are those of Milan, with MD in the field (265-7), which were
struck between 394 and Honorius’ move to Ravenna in 402/4. The Ravenna coins, with RV in
the field (272), date from after 402. Those of Rome, with RM (T — ; 269) must date from 404,
when Honorius spent several months in the city and minted there on a substantial scale (below,
p. 194). Those of Aquileia, with AQ (T—; UB pl. E.p), which like the others have a parallel
WESTERN GOLD AND SILVER 129
issue for Honorius (722), were probably struck in 404/5, since Aquileia may have then been
briefly considered as a possible capital (below, p. 198), though Panvini Rosati has suggested the
fall of 401 as an alternative (Panvini 1978a, 295). Finally, there is in the Bibliotheque Nationale
a unique solidus of Arcadius struck at Arles, with AR in the field (Lafaurie 1969) matching one
of Honorius from the same mint (Lafaurie 1965; below, p. 199). Lafaurie suggests, probably
correctly, that it was minted when the offices of the praetorian prefect of the Gauls were trans-
ferred there from Trier. This would place it in 407 (above, p. 69) rather than in 398/9, which on
the authority of Demougeot he believed to have been the date of the move.
The only other recorded Italian solidus in Arcadius’ name, known from a unique specimen
in the British Museum, was struck for Arcadius’ qguindecennalia in 397/8. It has as obverse type a
virtually facing bust of Eastern type and on the reverse the seated figures of Roma and Constan-
tinopolis holding between them a shield inscribed VOT/XV/MVLT/XX (PCR III.1573). The leg-
end is VOTA PLVRIA, and while there is COMOB in the exergue, there is no other indication
of mint. Carson in PCR ascribes it to Milan, Honorius’ normal place of residence, but one would
expect an unusual piece of this character to have originated in Rome. The design in itself tells
us little, though the odd style of the obverse bears witness to the evident difficulty of the die-
sinker with a form of bust to which he was quite unaccustomed. But in the last months of 398,
Honorius was absent from Milan for a fairly long period—he was at Padua on 24 September
and sometime in the late autumn at Pisa (Seeck 1919, 292)—-so it is possible that he visited Rome
in the late summer (after 5 July) and the coin is indeed from that mint.
The only known semisses are of Milan (T —; UB pl. vim.81) and Rome (T — ; UB pl. H.a),
with a VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM legend, a seated Victory inscribing VOT/X/MVLT/XX on a
shield, MD or RM in the field, and COMOB in the exergue. The vota are those of Honorius,
and while the Rome one presumably made part of Honorius’ large Rome coinage of 404, the
Milan one is better dated to 402. Tremisses were no doubt struck also in the period, with a
VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM inscription, a Victory advancing right holding wreath and globus
cruciger, the mint letters in the field, and COM in the exergue. Although the type is known for
the four mints of Milan, Ravenna, Rome, and Trier, the coins of Trier are necessarily earlier and
only the coins of Ravenna (T 45—6) can be certainly dated to the period. The others simply
carried on a type going back to the years 388/95.
The silver coinage (Table 30) is mainly one of Milan and Rome, the most spectacular pieces
being those struck at Rome on the occasion of Honorius’ “triumph” there in 404 (below, p. 194).
The largest is a TRIVMFATOR GENT BARB multiple of six siliquae (T 48-9), the type being
the same as that struck in 383/8 (above, p. 108) but with RMPS instead of RE in the exergue.
Unlike the Honorius equivalents, it is not known for either Milan or Ravenna. The same
“triumph” saw the issue at Rome of a heavy miliarense having VOT/X/MVLI/XX in a wreath
(T 51; 5.2 g), the portrait being identical with that of the Trumfator coin, and of a light mili-
ariense with VIRTVS EXERCITVS and a figure of the emperor standing with spear and shield
(270). The mint-mark in both cases is RMPS, and both have counterparts in Honorius’ name.
Milan multiples all have MDPS as mint-mark but fall into three distinct groups, the earliest
with a small bust just reaching the inner circumference of the legend, the second with one
reaching to a level halfway up the letters, and the third with a large bust reaching the outer edge
of the coin. The first two groups antedate 395 (above, p. 115). The third group, evidently of the
period 395/408, includes a heavy miliarense and a light one. The heavy miliarense (illus. in UB
pl. v1.83; cf. Blancard 1888) has as reverse type VOT/X/MVLI/XX in a wreath. It was dated
by Pearce (RIC 81/24) to 392 on the assumption that the vota were those of Arcadius, but the
130 ARCADIUS
TABLE 30
Western AR in Arcadius’ Name, 394—408
Six-siliqua multiple (404) ;
TRIVMFATOR GENT BARB Emp. |
_ standing w. labarum and globe, captive
to |. |
(a) RMPS 48-9
Miliarense (heavy)
VOT/X/MVLT/XX in wreath
(a) MDPS (402) —— UB pl. vi11.83 (p. 197)
(b) RMPS (404) 51
(c) RVPS (404) — Gn pl. 37.8
Miliarense (light)
VIRTVS EXERCITVS Emp. standing
w. spear and shield
(a) MDPS (402 or 404) 52 UB pl. v1.64
(b) RVPS (404) 54 S 1.101/7, from
Mionnet and Tanini
(c) RMPS (404) 270 PCR II1.1570
Siliqua
VIRTVS ROMANORVM Roma
seated |. holding globe w. Victory
(a) MDPS (394-402) 59-60 192-4 RIC 83/32b; UB pls.
v.56; v1.66
(b) RMPS (404?) 57 PCR I11.1571
(c) AQPS (404?) 58
(d) TRPS (392-5) 61-2 195-9 RIC 33.106b, c
size of the bust excludes this possibility; the vota must be those of Honorius. The date should on
the face of it be 402, but since the type was used for the Rome issue of 404 and the coins
resemble each other closely, it may equally well be of this year. The light miliarense with large
bust has a VIRTVS EXERCITVS legend and a standing figure of the emperor holding a spear
and shield and looking left (T 52 = UB pl. v1.64; 4.2 g). It is also of 402 or 404.
Finally, from Ravenna there is a heavy miliarense with VOT/X/MVLI/XX in a wreath and a
light one of the VIRTVS EXERCITVS type, both with RVPS as mint-mark. Since Honorius had
not taken up residence in Ravenna at the beginning of 402, they are probably best attributed to
404.
The siliquae, with a VIRTVS ROMANORVM legend and Roma seated on a cuirass and
holding a globe with a Victory and an inverted spear, are more of a problem. Coins exist for the
mints of Milan (MDPS), Rome (RMPS), Aquileia (AQPS), and Trier (TRPS). Pearce attributes
the Trier ones (RIC 33/106b, c) to 392—5, but none of the others to the same period, though the
Milan series probably began in 394 and continued to 402. Some of the Trier ones have Arcadius’
name curiously misspelled ARCAPIVS, an error that occurs also on the AE 4 of the Victorta
Auggg and Victory-advancing-left type of the same mint. The siliquae have Arcadius’ name bro-
ken and a fairly large bust, and presumably continued after 395 till the mint was closed, appar-
WESTERN BRONZE COINAGE 151
TABLE 31
Western AE in Arcadius’ Name, 394-408
The Urbs Roma Felix series is included in RIC, having been misdated 394—5 and later, but
since the breakdown (135/67c, pearl-diademed; 135/67d, rosette-diademed) does not distinguish
the positions of Roma’s head (facing or looking right), it is not possible to match its references.
with those of LRBC, and they are therefore omitted. The type was not known to Tolstoi.
AE 4 |
VICTORIA AVGG(G) Victory adv. |. |
|
|
(a) TR (GG; 395)
(b) V/LVGP (GGG; 395) Bastien 1987a, no. 238
(c) xCON (i.e., Arles; GGG; 395-402)
SALVS REIPVBLICAE Victory
dragging captive I. (393-402)
(a) AQx 188-91 R 93; RIC 106/58c.1;
LRBC 1107, 1110
(b) Rx (normal obv. leg.)
(c) Rx (DNARCADI AVG)
AE 3
VRBS ROMA FELIX Roma standing,
holding trophy and Victory; OF x/SMROM
(402-8)
(1) Roma looking r.
(a) obv. breaks DI — VS
(b) obv. breaks D—IVS 271 RIC 135/67c.3
(c) same, rosette diadem
(2) Head of Roma facing
(d) obv. breaks DI — VS
(e) obv. breaks D — IVS
(f) same, rosette diadem
ently in or soon after that year. The Rome ones (T 57; PCR III.1571) have a portrait which
suggests that they belong to 404, and the rare Aquileia ones (T 58) could well do the same.
The bronze coins struck in Arcadius’ name by Honorius are plentiful, though whether they
were struck without interruption during the years when relations between the brothers were
strained we do not know. Quite possibly the officials of the bronze mints would have been un-
aware of such high matters and continued with the issues to which they were accustomed. The
pattern of coinage (Table 31) follows essentially that of Honorius (see ‘Table 39 on p. 207).
There was in 394/5 a brief overlap between an old type of AE 4 struck in the Gallic mints
and a new one introduced from the East and struck, so far as the West was concerned, only in
Italy. The Gallic AE 4 issue consisted of VICTORIA AVGGG coins with a Victory advancing left
that carried on with only slight modifications ones that were struck under Eugenius (see Table
23 above) and came to an end sometime late in 395 or soon afterward. The Eastern coinage was
that with a SALVS REIPVBLICAE legend and a Victory dragging a captive left (see Table 25
above). Its introduction must have followed immediately on the downfall of Eugenius, and it
132 ARCADIUS
continued to be struck, principally at Aquileia but also at Rome, from 394 to 402. The obverse
legend at Rome is normally DNARCADI-—VSPFAVG, but there are a few coins with
DNARCA — DIAVG, that is, with Arcadius’ name shortened to ARCADI and PF omitted, like
the equally anomalous DNHONO — RIAVG. Coins in the name of Arcadius were minted in
great abundance, so that in British and Gallic hoards of the time they often exceed in number
those of the corresponding issues of Honorius.
This AE 4 coinage was succeeded by an AE 3 issue of 402-8 confined to Rome, Aquileia
having been effectively closed in 402. The new coinage was presumably introduced in Theodos-
ius II’s honor and discontinued when news of Arcadius’ death on 1 May 408 reached Italy. It is
as diversified as that of Honorius, with Roma facing or looking right, Arcadius pearl- or rosette-
diademed, his name broken ARCADI — VS or ARCAD — IVS. Presumably the reason was the
same, the absence of precise instructions to the mint on such secondary matters. There is not
the same diversity on the obverses of coins with the name of Theodosius, presumably because
his name and the details of the obverse had to be spelled out in the mint instruction, while those
of Arcadius and Honorius were already known.
EUDOXIA
Wife of Arcadius
Augusta 9 January 400—6 October 404
Eudoxia was the only daughter of Bauto, a Frank who had risen to high rank in Theodosius’
army and been consul in 385. After his death she was brought up in the household of his
colleague Promotus, the general whose victory over the Ostrogoths in 386 had given Theodosius
a triumph and who was largely responsible for the defeat of Maximus in 389. After Promotus’
death in 391, she became a protégée of the eunuch Eutropius, who was lord chamberlain ( prae-
positus sacri cubiculi) and one of the most powerful figures at court. It was Eutropius who brought
about her marriage to Arcadius on 27 April 395, immediately after the boy’s return to Constan-
tinople from the West and in the face of the intrigues of his rival Rufinus, praetorian prefect of
the East, who had hoped to marry him to a daughter of his own.
Eudoxia was intelligent, well educated, strong willed, and impulsive, and after the death of
Eutropius, who was overthrown by Gainas in 399, and Gainas’ own downfall in 400, she became
all-powerful through her influence over the simple-minded Arcadius (O. Seeck in RE 6 [1909],
917-25; Holum 1982, 48-78). She was nominated augusta on 9 January 400, after having given
birth to two daughters, and perhaps a son, and died as the result of a miscarriage on 6 October
404. She is chiefly remembered for her public quarrel with St. John Chrysostom, patriarch of
Constantinople, and for her role in securing his deposition (404), an event which, as Bury said,
did much to determine the relationship between imperial and patriarchal authority for centuries
to come.
The legend on Eudoxia’s coins is always AEL(ia) EVDOXIA AVC, the Aelia being a title
assumed by empresses and not a personal name. On her solidi and bronze coins, she is shown
with a Manus Dei holding a crown above her head, as on coins of the young Arcadius. The
portrait bears out the statement of Zosimus (V.3.2) that she was a woman of outstanding beauty,
and that it was this that had attracted Arcadius’ attention to her in the first place. The study of
her coins was for long complicated by their being confused with those of her granddaughter
(Licinia) Eudoxia, since the first name of the latter was not used on coins struck on her behalf
in the East; they were also muddled, less excusably, with coins of Theodosius II’s wife Eudocia.
Though the confusion was largely sorted out by de Salis (1867), it still sometimes causes difficulty
(cf. Ulrich-Bansa 1935; Boyce 1954). The only coins that can really occasion problems are the
tremisses, where the type, a cross in a wreath, is common to both empresses, but those of the
wife of Arcadius have CON beneath the wreath and those of her granddaughter, struck only in
the West, have COMOB.
Eudoxia’s gold coins are of the standard denominations, only the solidi being at all common.
The tremissis (T 143) has already been described; the semissis, with a Chi-Rho in a wreath and
CONOB below, is known only in a specimen in the British Museum (T 142 from S I.121, no. 9,
pl. v1.2). The solidi all have the same reverse type, a Victory inscribing a Chi-Rho on a shield
and accompanied by the legend SALVS REIPVBLICAE referring to Eudoxia’s success in pro-
viding the state with an heir, but there are in fact three varieties, the first showing the shield
133
134 EUDOXIA
resting on a column (T 136—9; 273), the second with a shield resting on her knee (T — ; R 139),
and the third as last but with a star in the left field (T 140; 290). On coins of the first class, the
Chi-Rho is usually voided, but subsequently linear ones are more usual. The third class can be
dated January 403—October 404, the star having been added when Theodosius assumed the
consular dignity in January 403. The second was probably introduced at the time of Theodosius’
coronation in January 402.
Eudoxia’s silver coins are of extreme rarity. A heavy miliarense of 5.1 g, 24 mm in diameter,
having on the reverse a Chi-Rho in a wreath and CONS beneath, was included in a Glendining
sale of 20.xi.1969, lot 435, but its authenticity is not above suspicion (Kent in NC 1988, 261).
Ulrich-Bansa illustrated a siliqua in his collection having a cross in a wreath with CON beneath
(Ulrich-Bansa 1935, 25, fig. 1). Sabatier illustrates another siliqua or half-siliqua with a Chi-Rho
in a wreath, but since the part below the wreath is off flan one cannot determine the mint-mark
or consequently identify the empress with certainty (T 145 = S$ 1.122.11, pl. v1.3).
TABLE 32
Eudoxia: AE
AE 3 |
SALVS (CONS) LRBC 2445 | LRBC 2589 | LRBC 2800 T 151 |
REIPVBLICAE | LRBC 2213 279-81 282-6 T 150 |
Victory writing on T 149 287-8 |
shield (400-1) 274-8
AE 3
GLORIA (CONS) LRBC 2449 | LRBC 2805 | LRBC 2926
ROMANORVM | LRBC 2217
|Empress seated | T 146
facing (402)
| (CON)
| LRBC 2219
As last, cross in (CONS) LRBC 2450 | LRBC 2593 R 141
held (403-4) LRBC 2218 | T 148 294
291 | 293
(CON)
LRBC 2220
292
The bronze coins struck in Eudoxia’s name are AE 3 issued at all Eastern mints save Thes-
salonica and Heraclea, though coins of the latter may well be confused with those of Nicomedia.
The coins are of two types, one corresponding to the earliest solidi in both legend (SALVS
REIPVBLICAE) and type, the other having a new reverse type showing the empress seated
facing, sometimes with a crown above her head, and the legend GLORIA ROMANORVM.. It is
possible that this unusual type represented a silver statue of the empress on a porphyry column
erected in late 403 in the Augusteum, for although we know about it mainly because the festiv-
ities accompanying its inauguration gave much offense to Chrysostom (Socrates VI.18), it was
evidently a notable work of art. The porphyry column still survives and would be too small in
COINAGE OF EUDOXIA 135
its present state for a seated figure, but it may well have once been topped by a broader capital.
There is no hoard evidence regarding the sequence of types. De Salis was inclined to date
the Salus one after the coronation of Theodosius, but it more likely preceded the Gloria one,
since (1) it coincides in type with the earliest solidi, (2) it is much commoner than the Gloria one,
just as is the first type of solidus, and (3) in the Glora class there are two varieties in each mint,
one with and the other without a cross in the reverse field, and since this must have resulted
from a general instruction to all mints, it probably corresponds to the star on the solidi, which
would put the whole issue to 402—4 and coins with a cross in field to 403—4. The various issues
are set out in Table 32 with LRBC and Tolstoi references. Tolstoi’s ALEA of the Salus type is
listed but not illustrated. His KVZ (T 152) and NIK (T 153) are both from Sabatier (1.110, no.
4), and presumably misreadings.
THEODOSIUS II
Augustus 10 January 402-28 July 450
Eastern colleagues:
Arcadius, to 1 May 408
Pulcheria, from 4 July 414 onward (d. 453)
Eudocia, from 2 January 423 onward (d. 460)
Western colleagues:
Honorius, to 15 August 423
Galla Placidia, from 421 onward
(not recognized before 423; d. 450)
Valentinian III, from 23 October 425 onward
Licinia Eudoxia, from 6 August 439
Western usurpers or colleagues not recognized at Constantinople:
Constantine III, 407-11, and Constans
Maximus, 409-11
Priscus Attalus, 409-10
Jovinus, 411—13, and Sebastian
Constantius III, 8 February—2 September 421
John, 20 November 423-—(? August) 425
Theodosius was the only son of Arcadius. He was born on 10 April 401 (cf. Grégoire and
Kugener 1928) and created augustus by his father on 10 January 402. He became sole ruler of
the East after Arcadius’ death on 1 May 408, first under the effective regency of the pretorian
prefect and patrician Anthemius and, after 414, under that of his capable sister Pulcheria, who
was proclaimed augusta on 4 July of that year. Although only fifteen years of age and little over
two years older than her brother, she was a much stronger character and was believed by con-
temporaries to have taken virtual control of government from that time onward, though in the
420s and 430s she was to some extent supplanted by Theodosius’ wife Eudocia, whom he mar-
ried in 422.
Sozomen, who wrote his Ecclesiastical History in the 440s and dedicated it to the emperor,
gives in his preface a very favorable account of his character and upbringing, with emphasis on
his careful training in deportment and government affairs. Modern scholars are in general less
well disposed toward him (A. Lippold in RE, Zweite Reihe XIII [1973], 961-1044; Ostrogorsky
1957, 51-3; Stein and Palanque 1959, 281—6, 294-8). Against his piety and his many cultural
activities, ranging from the calligraphic skills that kept him occupied long hours into the night
and a Jeffersonian interest in labor-saving devices to the foundation of the “university” of Con-
stantinople and the compilation of the great legal code which forms the basis of so much of our
knowledge of the later Empire, has to be set his failure in the last decades of his life to protect
the Balkans from the ravages of the Huns, ravages involving a series of humiliating treaties with
Attila and gigantic ransom payments which, if they do nothing else, provide evidence for the
136
COINAGE OF THEODOSIUS II 137
enormous wealth of the Empire. The survival of the Empire in the East, at a time when the
Western half was dissolving into political chaos, was in fact due to good fortune and not to
the capacity of its nominal ruler. Theodosius died on 28 July 450 as a result of injuries incurred
through a fall while riding, and was buried in the church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople.
Theodosius’ coinage is abundant, especially in gold, and certain features of it can be attrib-
uted with some confidence to the emperor's personal tastes. One is the exceptional number of
consular and vota issues. It was normal for an emperor to assume the office of consul in the
January following his accession and occasionally thereafter, but Theodosius II was consul no
fewer than eighteen times, usually in association with either his uncle Honorius or his cousin
Valentinian III. The dates of the consulships are as follows:
I. 403
II. 407 (with Honorius)
Ill. 409 (with Honorius)
IV. 411
V. 412 (with Honorius)
VI. 415 (with Honorius)
VII. 416 (with Honorius)
VIII. 418 (with Honorius)
IX. 420 (with Constantius ITT)
X. 422 (with Honorius)
XI. 425 (with Valentinian, not yet augustus)
XII. 426 (with Valentinian III)
XIII. 430 (with Valentinian III)
XIV. 433
XV. 435 (with Valentinian III)
XVI. 438
XVII. 439
XVIII. 444
Consular coins are not as a rule specifically dated, the only exception being the solidus of
Theodosius’ last consulship of 444 (COS XVIII); those with COS XVII were not struck in the
actual consular year. A few, however, can be dated through their coincidence with vota celebra-
tions (e.g., 378, of 430), or because the political circumstances of their issue are known, as with
the consular solidi of 425 and 426. Definite dates do, on the other hand, mark the coins struck
to accompany the long series of quinquennial vota celebrations that punctuate the reign, but
these celebrations themselves are hard to date (Burgess 1988; cf. also MIRB, pp. 22—5). This is
partly because such celebrations often began at the start of the year in which the particular
anniversary would be attained, not on the anniversary date itself, and partly because Theodosius
seems to have enjoyed such things and speeded up the repetition of his quinquennala as the
reign progressed. The dates of many, but not all of them, are given in the Chronicon Paschale and
the Chronicle of Marcellinus, our only two sources for the period which pay much attention to
such things, though in each case it is necessary to translate the consular or other dating systems
used into modern terms. The dates, and the coins issued, are as follows:
138 THEODOSIUS II
Date Occasion Dated coins
406 Quinquennalia (Marc. 68)
or
407 Quinquennalia (Chron. Pasch. 569-70)
41] Decennalia, simultaneously with Honorius’ Siliquae
vicennalia at Rome (Marc. 70)
415 Third quinquennalia (Chron. Pasch. 572) Solidi, siliquae
420 Vicennalia Solidi
430 Tricennalia (Marc. 77) Solidi, semisses, siliquae
435 Seventh quinquennalia Semisses, AE 4
439 Eighth quinquennalia (Marc. 80) Siliquae
444 Ninth quinquennalia (Marc. 81) (Solidi)
The celebration of the first guinquennalia in 407 is what one would expect and that of 411,
though doubted by Burgess, is acceptable, but the celebrations of 415 and 430 are each two
years ahead of the full date and those of 439 and 444 are three years ahead. Both sets of figures
might be acceptable, if Theodosius had come to reckon from his birth instead of from his acces-
sion, and indeed this repeated tampering with the anniversary dates seems to have created
uncertainty over the emperor's exact age, for the Chronicon Paschale correctly puts his birth under
401 (p. 567) and his death under 450 but makes him fifty-one years old when he died (p. 590).
Whether this is the explanation or not, the tendency was clearly for the anniversaries to be
further and further antedated as the reign progressed. This fact has to be taken into account
when trying to date the vicennalia and other celebrations not mentioned in either of our two
sources.
Theodosius II’s long reign formed in several ways a landmark in late Roman coinage, for
several of the changes that occurred in it were ossified and carried on into the future. He made
no attempt, it is true, to modify the coinage system he had inherited from Arcadius, the denom-
inations remaining the same, but the AE 4 was reduced in the course of the reign from the small
but well-designed and well-struck coin current at his accession to the miserable nummus of the
mid-fifth century. The bulk of the gold coinage consisted of solidi, with semisses struck only
rarely and mainly in the last decades of the reign. Tremisses, however, became a regular element
in the coinage for the first time. Siliquae, like tremisses, mainly date from the 430s and the 440s.
The abundance of the gold coinage must in part be a consequence of the huge quantities re-
quired for Hunnic tributes.
The new solidus type of the 420s, that of a long cross supported by a Victory, became
virtually the only one used on solidi during the second half of the century, and the XX/VXXX
inscribed by a Victory on a shield which characterized the reverse of his semisses of 445 survived
immobilized but progressively blundered under his successors down to Justin II. It may have
been his sister Pulcheria (cf. Holum 1977) who was responsible for the prominence accorded to
the cross, most conspicuously on the solidi of his vicennalia, but the solidi and AE 4 of 423/4 are
the first coins to show a Roman emperor holding what in the future was to become the most
characteristic emblem of Christian sovereignty, a globus cruciger. The emperor is shown
bearded on virtually all his ceremonial coins and medallions from 430 onward, and a bearded
bust became in consequence an almost invariable feature of such coins and medallions under
his successors. It was also under Theodosius II that a star in the reverse field, or following the
mint-signature where the type made its insertion into the field inconvenient, became a regular
feature of the gold and silver coinage of the East, so that its presence forms the easiest way of
COINAGE OF 402-8 139
differentiating his coins in these metals from those of Theodosius I. It has been shown above
(p. 88) that this star was initially introduced to mark the coinage of 403, when Theodosius was
consul for the first time, and was thenceforward carried on as part of the design. It was dropped
in 420 when the solidus type was changed, but it was restored, this time permanently, when the
emperor assumed the consulship for the tenth time in 422.
The chronology of Theodosius II’s Eastern gold and silver coinage—little was struck in his
name by any of his Western colleagues—has been studied by Voirol (1945) and more compe-
tently by Hahn (1979; cf. also MJRB), and that of some groups of issues by Kent (1960) and
Boyce (1965). It can be divided into five periods: (1) 402-8, the coins struck in Theodosius’
name by Arcadius and Honorius; (2) 408-19, the coinage of Theodosius’ boyhood and youth
after Arcadius’ death but prior to his vicennalia, mainly his own but including a few Western
issues struck in his name by Honorius; (3) 420-9, the coinage of the 420s, starting with the coins
of the vicennalia, continuing with ones showing the emperor standing with labarum and globus
cruciger, and ending with those of the years 425—6 and subsequently in association with Valen-
tinian III; (4) 430-39, the coinage of the 430s, starting with the coins of his tricennalia but
including a sparse coinage for his seventh quinquennalia, another consular issue, and a special
issue for the marriage of Valentinian III and Eudoxia; and finally (5) 440-50, mainly his VOT/
MVLI/XXXX siliquae and IMP XXXXII solidi but also a Virtus exercitus coinage showing the
emperor suppressing a barbarian. The bronze coinage is set out in Table 33, and will be dis-
cussed in the appropriate sections. The omission from Tolstoi’s “corpus” of a number of quite
common types is usually to be explained by their earlier attribution, notably by Cohen, to Theo-
dosius I.
I. Coinage of 402-8
The coinage of this period is characterized, in the case of the solidi, by three C’s at the end
of the reverse legend, but the coins divide into two groups according to whether or not there is
a star in the field (above, pp. 87-8). Solidi without a star are of 402, being struck prior to
Theodosius’ first consulship in January 403, and are known for both Constantinople (T — ; 295—
6) and Thessalonica (T — ; MIRB -; 298), the latter with COMOB and having a Christogram on
the emperor's breastplate, besides being larger in module and coarser in style than the solidi of
the capital (cf. Metcalf 1988, 80-3). The accompanying AE 3 have on the obverse a helmeted
facing bust, an unusual feature on the bronze, but it is very small and has an unbroken legend
as on the earliest AE coins of Arcadius. The reverse type is a seated Constantinopolis crowned
by a Victory, and the inscription is CONCORDIA AVGG, with only two G's. Tolstoi knew them
only for Constantinople (T 77) and Antioch (T 78), but four mints are recorded in LRBC (see
Table 33).
The solidi of 403-8 differ from those of 402 only in having a star in the field, and exist as
before for both Constantinople (T —; Hahn 1979, 12a; 303-5) and Thessalonica (T — ; Hahn
52; 307). The accompanying AE 3 are of a new design. The bust is now in profile, with a star
behind the head, and the inscription broken; and the reverse type consists of the three standing
figures of Arcadius, Honorius, and a diminutive Theodosius, the inscription being GLORIA
ROMANORVM. The type is not recorded by Tolstoi, no doubt because he followed Cohen in
attributing it to Theodosius I (C 24), but the correct attribution is confirmed by the presence of
the star in the obverse field. The accompanying AE 4 have CONCORDIA AVGGG (three G's)
and a cross in wreath. Here there is no star to distinguish between issues, and the coinage was
probably struck over the whole period 402-8. For details on both denominations, see Table 33.
140 THEODOSIUS II
TABLE 33
Theodosius II: Eastern AE
Numbers in ordinary type are those of LRBC, ones in boldface are those of the catalogue. The obverse type
is a simple profile bust unless some variant is indicated.
Armored bust facing
CONCORDIA AVGG
Cpolis seated
Star to |. of bust GLORIA
ROMANORVM 3 figs.
standin
CONCORDIA AVGGG
cross
GLORIA ROMANORVM
2 emps. standing
(a) w. spear and shield 1877
(MIRB 72) 330-1
(b) supporting a globe
(MIRB 74)
Cross in wreath (MIRB 84)
(a) unbroken legend
2925
312
2928
2931
(b) broken legend
CONCORDIA AVGV
Emp. standing (M/RB 77)
GLOR ORVIS TERRAR
Emp. standing (M/RB 78)
VICTORIA AG
Victory facing (MIRB — )
425-9? CONCORDIA AVG
Victory facing (MIRB 82)
426? CONCORDIA AGV Two | 1878
emps. standing
430 VOT/XXX (MIRB 87)
434 VOT/X/MVLT/XX
(for Val. II)
435 VT/XXX/V (MIRB 88)
ca. 445/50 Monogram (MIRB 86)
338
2245-6] 2462
The only anomalies are the absence of any AE 3 coinage in this period at Heraclea and any AE
4 in Theodosius II’s name at Constantinople. The double numbering of the AE 4 at Heraclea is
due to the existence of coins either with broken legend (LRBC 1998) or with unbroken legend
and a pellet in the right field (LRBC 1999). At Alexandria there is a variety reading AVG (LRBC
2922) instead of AVGGG. There is no AE 4 in Theodosius’ name in the collection here, but the
type is that of Arcadius (253, 257, 261-2, 264).
Also probably attributable to this period, and perhaps to 403, is a light miliarense (T — ;
MIRB 61a; 306; 4.17 g) with a youthful imperial bust and the head turned left, the reverse
showing a standing figure of the emperor with his right hand raised and a globe in his left. The
COINAGE OF 408-19 141
coin may be later, however, for although there is a companion piece of Honorius (782), none of
Arcadius seems to be known. The date 392/5 proposed by Kent (1978, no. 725) for the specimen
in the British Museum is excluded by the presence of a star in the field, which places the coin in
or after 403. Between twenty and thirty specimens, of which this is one, began to come on the
market in the early 1960s, allegedly from a hoard found somewhere in the Balkans or Turkey,
making a coin that was unknown to Tolstoi into one that is now fairly common.
II. Coinage of 408-19
With the death of Arcadius on 1 May 408 the number of co-augusti dropped to two, so that
while the type of the Constantinopolitan solidus remained a seated Constantinopolis with star
in field as before, the number of C’s in the reverse legend was reduced from three to two (T l-
9; MIRB 12; 313-18).
The main series of tremisses of the reign have been grouped together on Plate 13 in this
period, though they may have started earlier and certainly continued later. Theodosius’ trem-
isses are in fact of two types, one having on the reverse a trophy of arms and no legend (T 64;
MIRB 48; 361-2), the other having a Victory advancing to the right but looking backward and
holding a wreath and globus cruciger (T 65—6; MIJRB 45; 319-27). The type with a trophy is
much the rarer of the two, and its dating is uncertain, but it seems reasonable to associate it with
the earlier of Theodosius’ two military solidi, the Gloria orvis terrarum issue of 423/4. The Victory
type, which continues that of Arcadius, must have been struck during most of the reign. To the
same period are best classed the AE 4 with cross in wreath and broken obverse legend, as ex-
plained already.
During this period, and still at Constantinople, there were struck the following known cere-
monial coinages:
(1) A vota solidus for Theodosius’ decennalia of 411 having for reverse type a seated Con-
stantinopolis supporting a shield with the inscription V/MVLI/XX (MIRB 3; several specimens
recorded).
(2) A vota solidus for Theodosius’ third quinquennium of 415 (T 17; MIRB 5; 346), having as
obverse type a beautifully designed bust of Theodosius with his head turned to the right and on
the reverse the seated figures of Roma and Constantinopolis supporting a shield with the in-
scription VOT/XV/MVL/XX.
(3) A consular solidus having on the obverse a beardless bust of Theodosius wearing con-
sular robes and facing left, and on the reverse the emperor seated facing as consul, the legend
being SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE (T — ; MIRB N7; 347). Theodosius was so often consul that
the coin cannot be dated with certainty, but most of his later consular coins are either specifically
dated or show the emperor bearded, and this coin must be from relatively early in the reign.
Either Theodosius’ seventh or eighth consulship (416 or 418) seems the most likely date.
(4) A heavy miliarense (T 68; MJRB 59; 348, 4.30 g but badly scraped on the obverse), with
bust right and a Gloria Romanorum reverse with the emperor standing, looking left, holding spear
and shield. The youthful bust indicates an early date, but there is no obvious occasion of issue.
(5) Two extremely rare dated issues of siliquae, one (T 70; MJRB 63); with VOT/X/MVLT/
XX and the other (T 71; MIRB 65) with VOT/XV/MVLIT/XX in a wreath, the mint-mark in both
cases being CONS* and the star distinguishing the coins from similar issues of Theodosius I.
The second could in theory celebrate the third guinquennium of Honorius in 407, but it seems
more reasonable to date them both by those of Theodosius II to 411 and 415.
These coins of the period 408-19 are all of Constantinople. The only other gold ones of
142 THEODOSIUS II
the period are solidi of Thessalonica and one type, or possibly two, struck by Honorius at Ra-
venna in his nephew’s name. The latter are discussed in the section on Western issues (below,
pp. 149-50). The solidi of Thessalonica are of the same type as before, but with GG instead of
CCC and first the mint-mark COMOB (MIRB 52b) and subsequently TESOB (square E) (M/JRB
54b, c; 329). The OB is sometimes flanked by two pellets. A variety with CCC and TESOB
(MIRB 54a) is presumably a mule between different issues. There is a discussion of the different
varieties in Metcalf (1988, 80—3, with 93, nos. 1-18).
The bronze coins of the period are AE 3 and probably AE 4, the former dated by the fact
of their also being struck in the name of Honorius but not in that of Arcadius. The type of the
AE 3 is modified from that of the years 402-8 by its having only two standing figures instead of
three, Theodosius and Honorius now being the same size. The Gloria Romanorum inscription is
retained, and there is the same star in the obverse field. There are two slightly different designs,
one having each emperor holding a spear and shield, the other having them without shields but
holding a globe between them. Since both occur at several mints—possibly at all, with the “miss-
ing” ones yet to be found—it is probable that they were consecutive issues, though we cannot
say which came first. Their distribution is set out in Table 33; see also Table 39 (on p. 207) for
the accompanying issues of Honorius. Neither type, surprisingly, is recorded for Antioch. Often,
on actual specimens, the mint-mark cannot be read, as with 339—40.
The authors of LRBC attribute no AE 4 to this period, since there are no corresponding
coins of this denomination in Honorius’ name, but the principle of collegiality was not always
applied in the lower denominations, and it seems likely that the coins with a simple cross-in-
wreath reverse (T 82; 328, 332—8) may have started in this period and not only after 423, as
LRBC assumes. For details, see Table 33. Dates can scarcely depend on whether the obverse
legend is broken or unbroken, and the variant forms of mint-mark are not always helpful in
individual cases since they are so often illegible or off flan.
III. Coinages of 420-9
Theodosius’ coinages of the 420s are the most varied of his reign, and the first type, that of
a Victory supporting a long, jeweled cross, was to dominate the solidi of the East for the rest of
the century. There is a considerable literature on its introduction (Frolow 1948; Holum 1977;
Kent 1960), for it both assimilated the Cross to the traditional pagan theme of Victory and is
believed to represent the richly ornamented cross, de auro et gemmis ornata tota, erected in 420 at
the emperor's expense on the supposed site of the Crucifixion in response to a supernatural
happening of 419, when pilgrims to Jerusalem had seen a vision of Christ in the heavens and
crosses had appeared on the clothing of onlookers (Marcellinus, a. 419; Lafaurie 1973a).
The coins are dated VOT XX MVLT XXX, but the actual date of the vicennalia is disputed,
for the celebration is not listed by either Marcellinus or the Chronicon Paschale. On strictly chron-
ological grounds, it should have been 422, but Theodosius’ celebration of his third quinquennalia
in 415 and his ¢ricennalia in 430 point to 420 as a more likely date. Kent has argued in favor of
422 on the ground that “a date as early as 420 seems excluded by the presence of Honorius [1.e.,
on some coins], with whom relations were very strained at this time” (Kent 1960, 130). This,
however, is not the case, for the quarrel between the two courts began only late in that year,
when Honorius nominated his brother-in-law Constantius III consul for January 421 and sub-
sequently associated him as augustus (February 421). Marcellinus, further, records the celebra-
tion of Honorius’ tricennalia under 422 but says nothing of any corresponding celebrations by
Theodosius, while one may conjecture that in the Chronicon Paschale a notice of the vicennalia in
COINAGES OF 420-9 143
420 was crowded out by the long account this gives of the preparations for the wedding of
Theodosius and Eudocia on 7 June. It is therefore best to date the vicennalia to January 420, in
line with the anniversaries of 415 and 430, and assume that the new coinage started in that year.
The solidi to be ascribed to 420 form two series, one ceremonial in character and extremely
rare, the other quite common and issued for normal use. The first (T — ; M/RB 6) has on the
obverse a consular bust facing left and the second the normal three-quarter facing bust (T 47—
8; MIRB 15; 350-3), while both have on the reverse the new design of a Victory and long cross.
In neither case is there a star in the field, presumably because one did not happen to be included
in the new design. Coins of the same type, without star, were struck in the names of Honorius
(C 68; 789) and Pulcheria (437), the former being rare and the latter quite common.
Within a short time the star was back, the normal (non-consular) solidi of Theodosius II
with VOT XX MVLT XXX legend being as often with a star as without one. The date of the
change can be deduced from the coins of his co-augusti. Those of Honorius do not help, for
although all are without a star, the breach between the courts of Constantinople and Ravenna
makes it unlikely that solidi were still being struck in Honorius’ name after the early months of
421. It must have been before Eudocia’s coronation as augusta on 2 January 423, however, for
all her solidi have a star. The occasion must surely have been Theodosius’ assumption of the
consulship for the tenth time in January 422. All coins marked in this fashion (T 40-6; MJRB
18; 354-5, and for Pulcheria 438-9, Eudocia 454-5, and Placidia 824) would thus be datable
to 422 or subsequently, between Theodosius’ tenth consulship and his eleventh, in association
with Valentinian in 425.
The semissis of this coinage has a Victory inscribing XX/XXX on her shield. The coin is
common, and there is always a star in the left field (T 63; MIRB 39; 356). Probably the elimina-
tion of the star from the solidus was incidental to the new design of the reverse, and did not
affect the semissis since the reverse of this, apart from an altered numeral, remained the same.
The same would have been the case with the accompanying siliqua, the type of which is VOT/
XX/MVLT/XXX in a wreath and CONS beneath (T 72-3; MIRB 66; 357-8).
The next ostensibly dated coinage is that issued in 425 to celebrate the joint consulship of
Theodosius II and Valentinian III, but between the two, in 423—4, a new type was introduced
having on the reverse the standing figure of the emperor in military costume holding a labarum
and globus cruciger (T 10-15; MIRB 32; 359-60). The boastful and novel inscription is
GLOR(ia) ORVIS TERRAR(um), orbis being spelled with a V, as it was no doubt pronounced,
instead of with a B. The globus cruciger held by the emperor was an innovation that was to have
a great future before it (above, pp. 75, 138). There is nothing in the design or inscription to
date this issue. Hahn, hesitantly followed by Metcalf (1988, 77-8), originally put it in the 440s
but subsequently (in M/RB, p. 27) amended this to the 420s, an attribution in fact proved by the
presence of three specimens in the Comiso hoard from Sicily, which dates from the early 430s
(Panvini 1953, 426, nos. 328-30; see below, pp. 282-3). The small number in the hoard, and
the equally small numbers in the Bina and Szikancs hoards (see Tables 43, 48 on pp. 279, 291),
link it with the other types of the early 420s and prevent its attribution to a later decade. The
coin was struck at Thessalonica as well as at Constantinople, the Thessalonican coins (T 16;
MIRB 58; 364-9) being especially common, Metcalf (1988, 92—4, nos. 38-130) listing nearly
100 apart from the ones here. They have TESOB in the exergue, the E being sometimes square
(Latin) and sometimes rounded (Greek) as one would expect from the date of the issue, for
TESOB solidi prior to 420 had had a square E and the subsequent VOT XXX ones have the
letter rounded. Kent, who also assigned the coinage to 424, pointed out (Kent 1960, 130) that
144 THEODOSIUS II
the unusual abundance of its Thessalonican issues can be explained by the city having served as
the base for Theodosius’ projected expedition to Italy in that year. It was indeed at Thessalonica
that Valentinian was proclaimed Caesar in October before setting out.
With this type of solidus can probably be classed the tremisses having as reverse type a
trophy of arms (T 64; MIRB 48; 361-2), though Hahn (in MI/RB, p. 31) prefers to associate
them with the military Virtus exerc solidi in the 440s, and certainly the rare AE 3 or 4 which have
the same reverse type and legend as the solidus. These were unknown to Tolstoi but exist for at
least the three mints of Constantinople (LRBC 2227), Nicomedia (LRBC 2458), and Cyzicus
(LRBC 2601), the copying of the gold going so far as to include the star in the left reverse field.
An unpublished variant of it without the star has the legend VICTORI AAG followed by an
officina numeral, which on the specimen here (363) is A and justifies the attribution of the coin
to Constantinople.
In 425 there was a new issue of solidi, to celebrate the joint consulship of Theodosius II
and his guest, the infant Valentinian III, who was not yet augustus. The reverse type shows the
two consuls side by side, with Theodosius seated in the place of honor on the spectator’s left and
Valentinian, a much smaller figure, standing on the right (T 33-5; MIRB 22; 370-3). These
were followed in 426 by yet another joint consular issue, this time showing both figures seated
(T 25-32; MIRB 23; 374-6), since Valentinian had been created augustus in October 425. Both
series are fairly common and must each have been issued through the year in question, not
simply for presentation or distribution purposes at the consular inaugurations in January. The
second series may indeed have continued over the next three years also, being replaced by a new
coinage only in 430.
Possibly attributable to the late 420s are the AE 4 having the legend CONCORDIA AVG
and a facing Victory with a wreath in each hand. They are recorded by LRBC for Heraclea
(2002-3), Constantinople (2233), Nicomedia (2459), Cyzicus (2602), and Antioch (2809). LRBC
dates them 425-50, but since they were only minted in the name of Theodosius, and not in that
of either Honorius or Valentinian, we have few clues as to their dating. The fact of their having
been struck in at least five mints excludes the last years of the reign and makes even the 430s
unlikely.
IV. Coinages of 430-8
With Theodosius’ tricennalia in 430, the hundredth anniversary of the foundation of Con-
stantinople, a new coin type was introduced that dominated, though it did not monopolize, the
solidus reverses of the last two decades of the reign. It is one showing Constantinopolis seated
to the left. She is totally assimilated in her appearance to the traditional figure of Roma, hel-
meted and with a shield beside her throne, but she has in her right hand the globus cruciger
that on the preceding coinage had been held by the emperor. The reverse inscription is VOT
XXX MVLT XXXxX, and the coins were struck at both Constantinople, with CONOB (T 49-58;
MIRB 25; 379-87), and Thessalonica, with TESOB (T — ; MIRB 56; Metcalf 1988, 92, nos. 29—
39; 390). They were probably struck over the whole decade, the issue being as usual interspersed
with extremely rare ceremonial coins which are either unique or known in only two or three
specimens. There are also semisses with a Victory inscribing XXX/XXXX ona shield (M/RB 42).
The first of the ceremonial solidi was a consular issue of January 430, when Theodosius II
and Valentinian III shared the consular dignity and are both shown seated on the reverse in the
usual fashion, with a VOT XXX MVLT XXXX legend (T —; M/RB 7; 378). The obverse type
shows Theodosius, looking left, wearing consular robes and holding mappa and cross-scepter.
COINAGES OF 430-8 145
As on all later ceremonial issues, he is now shown with a closely cut beard following the lines of
his face.
A further consular issue, dated by the legend VOT XXXV MVLT XXXxX, celebrated his
seventh quinquennalia in 435, but although Valentinian was again his colleague, Theodosius
is represented alone on the reverse, with a single seated figure instead of two (IT —; MIRB
V8; 391).
Yet another consular solidus, this time undated, was struck during the decade. It is of the
same type and reverse inscription (SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE) as 347 of two decades earlier,
but differs in that the emperor is now bearded and the star is in the right field instead of in the
left. It is known only from a single specimen in the Szikancs hoard that is now in the Hungarian
National collection at Budapest (M/RB 10; Biro Sey 1975-6, 15, no. 461; illus. in Biro Sey and
Gedai 1973, figs. 29-30). It is not possible to say which of Theodosius’ consulships in the 430s
it belongs to, for there were three, in 433, 438, and 439, and it might have been any of them.
The most likely one is the last, since the bearded effigy of Theodosius, with its long mustache,
is that of a much older man than the emperor is shown elsewhere.
It was presumably to one or other of these celebrations, but probably, in view of slight
differences in the portraiture, not to the same one, that one must assign the only two gold
medallions of Theodosius that are known. Both of them are types customarily associated with
the particular denominations involved, and are pieces of exceptional beauty. One is the double
solidus at Dumbarton Oaks (M/RB 2; 377; enlargement of the obverse in Kent 1978, fig. 748)
having a bearded bust of the emperor on the obverse and the seated figures of Roma and
Constantinopolis on the reverse. The legend, GLORIA ROMANORVM, provides no basis for
dating, but a comparison of the face with the consular solidus of 430 suggests that both were
struck in the same year. The other medallion is a much larger one of 4'% solidi now at Sofia
which was found in Bulgaria in the 1930s (Gerasimov 1940; Laffranchi 1942; MIRB 1). It shows
a slightly older bust on the obverse and has on the reverse the seated figure of Constantinopolis
that was commonly used for this denomination (cf. Gnecchi 1912, I, pls. 13.1, 14.9). Unfortu-
nately it was mounted in Antiquity, and the remains of the mount cover part of the reverse
design. There is no precise parallel to the portrait, and the exact date must be regarded as
uncertain, though it certainly belongs to the latter years of the reign.
Yet another type of ceremonial solidus was struck in the 430s, that celebrating the marriage
of Theodosius’ daughter Licinia Eudoxia to Valentinian III in October 437. The reverse type
shows the standing figures of the pair with a slightly larger one of Theodosius between them,
their hands joined in the dextrarum iunctio that sealed the alliance, and Theodosius, who is shown
bearded, with his arms clasped about their shoulders. Each wears full court dress (chlamys with
tablion) and provides one of the few cases in the fifth century in which the details of this are
shown. The legend FELICITER NVBTIIS refers to the occasion. The coin (MIRB 8) was un-
known to Sabatier and Tolstoi, but four specimens are recorded, one in the British Museum
(PCR II1I.1603), a second in Berlin (Dressel 1898, 247-49; Sallet 1929, 139), a third rather
damaged one at Dumbarton Oaks (395), and the fourth mounted as a pendant on a gold collar
sold at Basel in 1935 (MMAG Basel, sale 35, 16.vi.1935, lot 199). Valentinian arrived at Constan-
tinople on 21 October 437, and the wedding took place the following week, on 29 October. The
couple apparently remained in the capital for some weeks before leaving for Thessalonica,
where they spent the winter, returning to Ravenna in late March or early April 438. The coin
was probably struck for distribution at the wedding itself, its exceptional character being shown
by its type, by the omission of the customary star in the field, and by the absence of an officina
146 THEODOSIUS II
numeral.
The only silver coins attributable to the 430s are light miliarenses of the same type as 306
but with the bust bearded (M/RB 61b) and siliquae of 430, with VOT/XXX/MVLT/XXXxX in a
wreath (T 74; MIRB 67; 388-9), which presumably were first struck in 430 for the celebrations
in that year but, since they are not rare, may have continued to be minted subsequently. There
are at least two dated types of AE 4, one of 430 having on the reverse VOT/XXX in a wreath
(LRBC 2243), the other, of 435, with the distorted legend VT/XXX/V in a wreath and known
for Constantinople (T 81, from S 1.118, no. 31, pl. 5.17; LRBC 2244; MIRB 87; 392—4) and
Cyzicus (LRBC 2607). LRBC also attributes to the same period some rare Constantinopolitan
AE 4 with VOT/X/MVLI/XX, the vota being those of Valentinian III and the coins struck in 434
or 435. It is likely that the common series having a cross in wreath continued into the 430s,
though for how long it is impossible to say.
V. Coinages of 439-50
Theodosius, according to Marcellinus, celebrated his eighth quinquennalia in 439, but its
reflection in the coinage is of an unexpected character. There was no new type of solidus com-
parable to the issues of 420 and 430, perhaps because the emperor was already envisaging his
immense coinage of 442/3 and was husbanding his resources in gold with this in mind. There
was instead a revival of the semissis, previously struck very rarely, with the Victory inscribing
XXXX on a shield (T — ; M/RB 42b; 396), and an issue of siliquae with VOT/MVLT/XXXX in
wreath (T 75; MIRB 68; 397—409). The latter are by far the commonest silver coins of the reign,
and were presumably intended in part to compensate for the failure to produce the customary
gold issues for the occasion. They could conceivably be dated 435, on the assumption that the
customary formula had been modified by the omission of XXXV, but an attribution to the eighth
quinquennalia seems more likely.
The dominant solidus of the 440s was in fact delayed till 442 or 443. It carries on the seated
Constantinopolis type of 430 but with a new legend, IMP XXXXII COS XVII.P.P., that is, two
dates followed by what would normally be an abbreviation for perpetuus but which, since the final
letters are almost invariably punctuated P.P. and there is no following AVG, must represent the
old epithet pater patriae (T 18-24; MIRB 33; 410-27). There are sometimes punctuation stops
after IMP and on either side of COS also (T 23). It was in the highest degree a family coinage,
being struck in substantial numbers not only for Theodosius himself but in the names of his
Eastern co-augustae Eudocia (459) and Pulcheria (441-2) and his Western colleagues Valenti-
nian (862), (Licinia) Eudoxia (872), and (Galla) Placidia (834), with only Honoria, whose dignity
was never recognized at Constantinople, omitted. It was also struck with the mint-mark COMOB
as well as CONOB, in both cases with or without an officina numeral.
The two problems over this coinage are the form and significance of its date, which has
been discussed at length elsewhere (Grierson 1988), its use of COMOB, and its exceptional
comprehensiveness. The two elements in the date do not at first sight agree, for Theodosius’
42nd year would have been 442 or 443 depending on how it was reckoned and his 17th consul-
ship was 439, but the consulship reference is no more than a record that he had been consul
seventeen times—it would remain operative till his 18th consulship in 444—and it is clear that
the date is 442 or 443.
But which of these is correct? The IMP I, IMP II, etc., in coin legends under the Principate
referred to the number of times a ruler had been hailed as imperator, but on these coins of
Theodosius it can only mean a regnal year. Since Theodosius was associated augustus by his
COINAGES OF 439-50 147
father on 10 January 402, the coins are in consequence usually dated 443. This has the advan-
tage of providing a plausible explanation for the use of COMOB instead of CONOB as the
mint-mark for the great majority of the coins (Kent 1956b, 202-3). Theodosius made a tour of
Asia Minor in the summer of 443, one of his few recorded absences from the city during his
reign. The purpose of the expeditio Asiana is unknown, but an anecdote in Sozomen’s dedication
of his Ecclesiastical History to the emperor suggests that it was little more than a sight-seeing tour.
Its precise duration is unrecorded but it must have been during the summer, for the emperor
was at Aphrodisias on 22 May and returned to Constantinople on 27 August. The COMOB
coins could have been struck in one or more of the cities visited by Theodosius and his comitatus
in his progress, though since some of them make use of officina numerals, the framework of the
mint of Constantinople would have been preserved.
But it is also possible, and perhaps indeed more probable, that the date was reckoned from
Theodosius II’s birth in 401, not from his elevation to the rank of augustus in 402. We know
from Claudian (IV Cons. Hon. V.154) that Honorius was created nobilissimus at birth and reck-
oned his dies imperit from that date (“vitam tibi contulit idem imperii dies”). One would expect
Theodosius II to have done the same, for Mark the Deacon’s biography of Bishop Porphyry of
Gaza (chap. 44) asserts that he was proclaimed basileus at birth—this word was at that time
treated as the equivalent of nobilisstmus and an alternative to the usual Greek rendering of this
as émipavéotatoc—and his statement is confirmed by inscriptions (Grégoire and Kugener 1928,
341-3). The date of Theodosius’ birth was probably 10 April 401 (Chron. Pasch., a. 401, etc., but
cf. Grégoire and Kugener 1928), and reckoning from this would start the IMP XXXXII coins
in April 442. This would exclude the expeditio Asiana as an explanation for COMOB. Possibly
the exceptional size of the issue is all the explanation that is required: special production had to
be organized outside the normal framework of the Constantinopolitan mint.
Both 442/3 and 443 are in any case reasonable alternatives, and it does not seem possible to
be certain which is correct. Nor perhaps does it greatly matter. What really requires explanation
is why Theodosius II should have wished to commemorate, in such a striking manner, his 42nd
year. There seem to be two possible explanations.
One is that Theodosius wished to draw attention to the remarkable length of his reign, for
he was the first emperor in the space of more than four hundred years to attain the years of
Augustus. If one reckons Augustus’ reign from his acclamation by the Senate as augustus on 16
January 27 B.c. to his death on 19 August a.p. 14, he was emperor for 42 years, seven months.
But this is the modern reckoning, not found at the time. Byzantine chroniclers counted Augus-
tus’ reign from the death of Caesar in 44 B.c. and almost unanimously credit him with a reign
of 56 years, which Theodosius never attained. It is therefore scarcely possible that Theodosius
or his advisers were thinking of Augustus when they ordered IMP XXXXII to be inscribed on
the coins.
The other possible explanation is that the issue was intended to celebrate another anniver-
sary of much greater moment, for by Byzantine reckoning it was in the 42nd year of Augustus’
reign that Jesus Christ was born. The date was worked out in the third century by chroniclers
engaged in bringing the various calendars of the ancient world into line with each other and
with the biblical events interesting to Christians. Through the influence of Eusebius and Jerome,
this date came to be generally accepted and is repeated again and again, with varying degrees
of precision, in all writers of the period. In manuscripts its significance is sometimes emphasized
by rubrication or capitalization, with the conspicuous entry XLII IHS XPS filius DI in Bethleem
Tudae nascitur across the page. Pagan users of the coins would see in the legend nothing more
148 THEODOSIUS II
than an imperial date, but its deeper significance would be apparent to the literate and devout,
and the celebration of such an auspicious anniversary was one in which all members of the
Theodosian house might be expected to participate.
The coinage of 442/443 was followed in 444 by a much rarer one of the usual consular type,
for in January 444 Theodosius became consul for the eighteenth and last time. The new coins
have as legend IMP XXXXIIII COS XVIII (T-—; Hahn 1979, 11, where it is misread as IMP
XXXXIII; MIRB 11; 428). Three specimens are known. One was published by Vejvoda (1947)
and subsequently included in the Hess-Bank Leu sale 36 (17.iv.1968), lot 595. The cast of a
second one was communicated by H. Nussbaum to Ulrich-Bansa in the 1930s, and of this there
is a photo in the Dumbarton Oaks photo collection. The third is the one at Dumbarton Oaks.
They are from different obverse dies but share a single reverse one. Their date is once again
something of a problem, for while the consulship date is certain, January 444 does not fall into
Theodosius II’s 44th imperial year whether this is reckoned from January 402 or from April
401. But if the mp. 42 coinage started in 442, it would be natural to treat one in 444 as Imp. 44,
and this is what seems to have been done. The type and rarity of the coins in any case shows
them to have formed a ceremonial issue.
The last solidus coinage of the reign, of the years 444—50, is the type showing the emperor
advancing to the right, bearing a trophy and dragging a captive by the hair (T 37-9; MIRB 31;
430-2). (Hahn in M/RB makes it precede the 442/3 coinage.) The legend is VIRT(us) EXERC(iti)
ROM(anorum). Its absence from the Bina and Comiso hoards (below, Tables 43, 45) dates it
post-442, and there were 61 specimens in the Szikancs hoard of 445/50 (below, Table 48). A
single specimen of Thessalonica (with TESOB) has been recorded (MIRB 57; Metcalf 1988, 92,
no. 37).
The other coins of the last years of the reign are insignificant in themselves but of some
consequence for the future. The semissis of 444 celebrated Theodosius’ ninth quinquennalia,
which Marcellinus dates to this year, with a Victory inscribing XX/VXX or XX/XXV on a shield
(T 61-2; Hahn — ; 429). The coins are important as being apparently the last Vota coinages ac-
companied by ceremonies in which account was taken of the correct dating, for all future sem-
isses are progressively blundered copies of ones with XV/XXX inscriptions. Hahn distinguishes
earlier coins having +/XXV, +/XXX, and +/XXXV and attributes them to 430, 435, and 440
(MIRB N42 a-c), but the reading on most specimens is highly uncertain.
The last years of the reign also saw the introduction of nummi having for the first time an
imperial monogram as reverse type (T 83; MIRB 86; LRBC 2245-6; 433-4), a device again
providing a model to be followed by Marcian, Leo I, and later emperors. The exergual legend
is usually off flan or otherwise illegible, but most of the coins seem to be of Constantinople, with
Nicomedia (NIC) the only other mint recorded with any certainty (M/RB 86°; LRBC 2462). It is
possible, as Kent has suggested, that there was an interruption in minting of a decade or more
between the issue of the coins of 435 with VI/XXX/V and the appearance of these monogram-
matic coins at some date shortly before 450 (Kent 1988a). They do not figure in the El-Djem
hoard, which must date from the late 430s or early 440s.
Finally, at some point in the reign (426?), there was a very limited revival of the AE 2
denomination (435). The obverse has a helmeted bust of the emperor to the right, holding a
spear and a shield, as on the solidi of his third quinquennium (346). The reverse shows the em-
perors Theodosius and Valentinian standing facing, wearing armor and holding each a spear
and jointly a long cross; the legend is CONCORDIA AGYV, with CONS in the exergue (LRBC
2231; MIRB 71; BM specimen illus. in PCR II1.1606; 435). The coin is of great rarity, never
WESTERN COINAGE 149
occurring in the many Balkan and Greek hoards of fifth-century nummi, and it may have been
specially minted, like the later AE 2 coins of Leo I, Verina, and Zeno, for use in the Byzantine
outpost of Cherson in the Crimea (so note in PCR III.1606), though find evidence for this is
lacking. Sabatier published a specimen with TES in his collection (S 1.117, no. 23, pl. v.11 = T,
p. 81, where it is attributed to Theodosius I; LRBC 1878).
VI. Western Coinage in the Name of Theodosius II
Theodosius’ Western contemporaries were effectively his uncle Honorius to 423, the
“usurper” John between 423 and 425, and his cousin Valentinian III from 425 onward. The
number of coins struck in his name by Western mints was minimal. Honorius minted on his
behalf and that of Arcadius between 402 and 408, but as soon as Arcadius was dead Theodosius
was banished from the coinage, and only two further issues were apparently struck in his name.
Valentinian III, who owed his throne to him, struck a few coins in his name in the mid-420s, in
the period after his accession, but thereafter was as reluctant as Honorius to make the principle
of collegiality manifest on the coinage. It is ironical that the only common Western coins struck
in Theodosius’ name should in part and perhaps in toto be attributable to the reign of John,
whom he refused to accept as co-ruler, and that it should have been left to Constantine III, a
usurper in Gaul, to recognize his imperial status by adding a fourth G to the formula AVGGG
on his solidi of 407-8. These last will be discussed in the context of Constantine III’s coinage
(below, p. 215). Solidi of Milan of the Emperor-Spurning-Captive type and VICTORI —
AAVGGG legend, with MD in the field, which were attributed to Theodosius II by Sabatier
(1.115, no. 11) and Tolstoi (60) are normally of Theodosius I (RIC 84/35a), but Ulrich-Bansa
(1976, 281) has cited one sharing a common reverse die with a unique coin of John, so some
specimens at least must be of Theodosius II.
The Western issues in Theodosius II’s name are as follows:
(1) AE 3 of Rome (S—; T—) with the legend VRBS RO — MA FELIX having for type a
standing figure of Roma either looking right (LRBC 818) or facing (LRBC 825). The coins were
also struck in the names of Arcadius (271) and Honorius (728-30), so they can be dated 402-8.
The type and denomination were introduced in honor of the new co-emperor. They are dis-
cussed below (p. 208).
(2) Solidus of Ravenna (RV in field) having on the obverse a profile helmeted bust and on
the reverse the standing figure of an emperor crowned by a Manus Dei, holding a staff sur-
mounted by a Christogram and placing his foot on the head of a recumbent lion. There are two
varieties, one having in the exergue COMOB (T 59 ex Montagu 967) and the other COB (BN
specimen illus. in Lafaurie 1958, pl. 1.3; another in Hess-Bank Leu sale, 16.iv.1964, lot 382). It
is a companion piece to the one of Honorius (742, with COB), but of much greater rarity. The
date is discussed in the context of Honorius’ coinage (below, p. 201), where it is suggested that
it was struck in 413.
(3) Solidus of Ravenna (RV in field) having a reverse of the Emperor-Spurning-Captive type
(T 59; 349). The legend ends GGG, and on general grounds one would expect such coins to
have been struck in the years 402—8 when three G’s would have been appropriate. But the bust
is a fully adult one, and Lafaurie, in the context of the Chécy hoard, noted that no specimens
had occurred in any of the recorded Western hoards of the early years of the fifth century which
contained solidi of Ravenna and therefore must date from the years after 402 (Lafaurie 1958,
323). Some at least of the coins must belong to the reign of John (423-5), who had a strong
150 THEODOSIUS II
motive for ingratiating himself with the Eastern emperor and thus obtaining the legitimation
that he lacked (Ulrich-Bansa 1976, 281—3; same date in PCR III.1583). But the Theodosian
solidi of Ravenna seem too common for a reign as short as that of John, and if the solidus with
a helmeted bust is correctly dated to 413, one would expect some continued use of Theodosius’
name on the regular issues of succeeding years. It is true that Theodosius is ignored on Western
AE of 402-23, but the gold and bronze coinages were separately administered, and what holds
good for one would not necessarily affect the other.
(4) Solidi of Milan of the same type but with MD in the field and effectively indistinguishable
from ones of Theodosius I of the same mint. They have been referred to above, and since only
one specimen is known of John’s Milanese coins, the number struck in Theodosius’ name must
have been small indeed.
(5) AE 4 of Rome with the Salus Reipublice legend and a Victory dragging a captive left, with
a Christogram in the field. There are two forms of mint-signature, with the officina initial either
in the field (LRBC 831-2) or preceding RM in the exergue (LRBC 835-6), and the obverse
legends break either THEODOSI — VS or THEODO -— SIVS. The type was a revival of an older
one, and the coins are datable by their having counterparts in the name of John (LRBC 833-4,
837; 822-3).
(6) Solidi of Aquileia struck in 425 having consular reverses with Theodosius II seated and
beside him the standing figure of Valentinian III, not yet augustus (T—; UB pl. L.a; PCR
11.1582). They were issued during the campaign to establish Valentinian as emperor, and are
of the same type as those issued in the same year by Theodosius at Constantinople (as 370-3)
but with AQ in the field.
(7) Siliquae of Trier. These are of two types closely related to each other. Both have a crown
suspended above the emperor's head on the obverse, and the reverse inscription is VIRTVS
(normally corrupted to VRTVS) RO —- MANORVM. The mint-signature is TRPS.
(a) Type 1 has Roma seated left holding a globe with Victory and a spear, with a star in the
left field (S 1.117, no. 22; T 85; BM specimen illus. in PCR II1.1581). Cohen attributed them to
Theodosius I (C 57-8), as did Koblitz in his monograph on the coinage of Trier (Koblitz 1928,
39, no. 8), but the star, and the existence of a parallel issue of Valentinian III (see below, p. 238),
show it to be of Theodosius II. There were two specimens, along with nine of the corresponding
ones of Valentinian, in the Kleinhiiningen 1933 hoard (Cahn 1937; cf. Lafaurie 1964a, 210),
and Cahn includes a careful list of all that are known.
(b) Type 2 has a standing figure of the emperor holding labarum and a globe surmounted
by a Christogram, with no star in the field. The coin was attributed by Cohen to Theodosius |
(C 61). There were two in the Kleinhiiningen hoard (nos. 17-18, fig. 4), with five of Valentinian
III’s corresponding issue, and there had been at least ten in the Arcy-Sainte-Restitue hoard of
1877 (Barthélemy 1878; cf. Lafaurie 1964b, 197-8).
Cahn’s important study of the coins can now be supplemented by the very full account by
King (1988, 199-206), and they are discussed below (pp. 238-9) in the context of the parallel
issues in the name of Valentinian III. Cahn was inclined to attribute them to the late 440s,
shortly before the fall of Trier to the Ripuarian Franks in 455. Lafaurie favored the same date,
connecting the revival of minting at Trier with the activity of Aetius in the region (Lafaurie
1964a, 175-82; cf. Mitard 1969, 356-7). Carson, on the other hand (PCR III.1581), dates the
coins with the star to 425, like the equally exceptional solidus of Aquileia, which also has a star.
The second type, without a star, would presumably have followed it (to ca. 430?). Lafaurie’s
dating has the advantage of providing a likely occasion for minting, but one can equally argue
WESTERN COINAGE 15]
that imperial officials in the Rhineland might have wished in 425 to issue coin in the names of
both emperors as a gesture of renewed loyalty after the usurpation of John. There is no decisive
hoard evidence either way, but since Aetius would have had no reason to honor Theodosius, we
are inclined to the earlier dating. In either case these coinages, with the related AE 4, must
represent the last coinage struck at ‘Trier in the name of an Eastern emperor.
(8) AE 4 of Trier, closely related stylistically to the siliquae, having the same bust with sus-
pended crown and the same VRTVS for VIRTVS error. The reverse type is a standing emperor
holding labarum and shield (T —; Koblitz 1928, 40, no. 19, as Theodosius I; LRBC 175, no
crown, and 176, suspended crown). There is a counterpart in the name of Valentinian III (LRBC
177; see below p. 239). Cahn (1937, 428 and 434 note 4) cites only two specimens of Theodosius,
one at Vienna (ex Koblitz) and the other, which he illustrates (ibid., fig. 4), then in the Ulrich-
Bansa collection. LRBC distinguishes two varieties, one with and the other without a crown, but
probably this is intended to be always present. The date would be 425-<a. 430, like the silver.
PULCHERIA
Sister of Theodosius II
Augusta 4 July 414—July 453
Pulcheria’s early career has already been described. Since from their childhood she domi-
nated her younger brother, her highly unusual promotion to the rank of augusta on 4 July 414
must have been arranged by herself and her advisers. She quite early took a vow of celibacy, and
induced her sisters Arcadia and Marina to do the same, in order to prevent some ambitious
layman marrying into the family and becoming a potential rival to her brother. Contemporary
historians assign to her a leading role in the government of the East for the next four decades,
for even after Theodosius’ marriage, Pulcheria would have remained the senior augusta and,
despite having Chrysaphius to contend with in the 440s, she was undoubtedly the strongest
personality at court (Holum 1982; W. Ensslin in RE, Zweite Reihe 23 [1959], 154-63). In 450
she was mainly responsible for securing the accession of Marcian, and by her marriage to him
she ensured the continuity of imperial authority. The precise nature of her influence over sec-
ular policy and legislation is largely conjectural, but her role in religious matters is well docu-
mented; she played a leading part in the summoning and deliberations of the Council of Chal-
cedon in 451 and in securing the implementation of its canons. She died in July 453 in the odor
of sanctity, leaving her possessions to the poor.
Coins were struck at intervals in Pulcheria’s name over the entire period 414—53. The ob-
verse legend is always AEL PULCHERIA AVC, and on the solidi her obverse bust is shown with
a Manus Dei holding a crown above her head, as had been the case with Eudoxia. The precious
metal coins have a star in the field or exergue with the exception of the solidi struck in 420-1,
when Theodosius’ parallel issue also dispensed with one. Her first solidus is of a type used for
Flaccilla and Eudoxia, but thereafter the coins are of the same types as those of her brother,
though with some hesitation in 430 and an avoidance of those in association with Valentinian
III and the military types of the late 420s and 440s. It may well have been Pulcheria who was
responsible for the introduction of the prominent cross on the Victory-holding-Cross type in
420 (Holum 1977) and for the Christianization of the globe held by the seated Constantinopolis
of the coinages of 430 and 442. All her coins are from the mint of Constantinople, and can be
most easily classed under denominations. M/RB references are to the “Theodosius II” section
in this unless otherwise indicated.
Solidus
Class 1. 414-19 (T 31; MIRB 14; 436). Legend SALVS REIPVBLICAE, without officina
numeral. Victory seated inscribing Chi-Rho on shield. Type and legend are
traditional.
Class 2. 420-30. Two varieties:
(a) Legend VOT XX MVLT XXX. Victory holding long cross. No star in field
(T 34; MIRB 17; 437). The absence of a star shows that it corresponds to
Theodosius II’s issue of 420-1.
152
COINAGE OF PULCHERIA 153
(b) Same, but with star (T 35-6; MIRB 19; 438-9). Theodosius’ corresponding
issue was limited to 422, being followed by one in which he is associated with
Valentinian, but Pulcheria’s may have continued to 429.
The unique coin of this type of Ravennate style in Tolstoi’s collection (T 37) is a forgery of
Cigoi. Apart from its defects of style, it lacks the star that one would expect on a coin that could
only have been minted in or after Valentinian’s arrival in Italy in 425 and which is present on
Galla Placidia’s Aquileian and Ravennate solidi of this type (825-8).
Class 3. 430 ff. There are two types:
(a) With VOT XXX MVLT XXXxX and same type as last (T — ; MJRB V27; 440).
This has no imperial counterpart, since Theodosius’ VOT XXX coins all have
a seated Constantinopolis. Presumably it was at first thought desirable for
Pulcheria to retain the type introduced a decade earlier, but the issue can
only have been brief, for the coin in the Whittemore collection appears to be
unique.
(b) With the same legend but a seated Constantinopolis as type (T 38-40; MIJRB
27). This corresponds to the issue of Theodosius II and is fairly common,
though not represented here.
Class 4. 442/3 (T 30; MIRB 35; 441-2). With IMP XXXXII COS XVII P.P. and a seated
Constantinopolis. This was part of Theodosius’ main issue of 442/3, and is found
with both CONOB and COMOB.
Class 5. 450-3 (T 32-3; MIRB “Marcian” 7; 443). With VICTORIA AVCCC legend and
Victory holding long cross. This corresponds to Marcian’s coinage in type and
legend. Both have the star in the right field instead of between the head of the
Victory and the top of the cross.
Semissis (T 41; MIRB 43; 444). Chi-Rho in wreath, with CONOB* beneath. Very rare,
and attributable to 414.
Tremissis (T 42—4; MIRB 49; 445-51). Cross in wreath, CONOB* beneath. Since the coin
is common and somewhat diversified in style, it was probably struck over the
whole period 414-53, for it would have been useful for the empress’ charities.
Siliqua There are two types:
(a) 414—50 (T 45-6; MIRB 69; 452). Same type as the tremissis, but since the coin
was not of gold, it has CONS instead of CONOB* beneath.
(b) 450-3 (T — ; MIRB “Marcian” 26; 453). SAL/REI/PHI in wreath and CONS*
beneath, the type corresponding to that of Marcian’s siliqua. This seems to be
unpublished.
Half-siliqua (T 47; 0.8 g). Same type as the siliqua of class (a), but smaller and with only CO[
legible on Tolstoi’s apparently unique specimen, which he bought in Venice and
believed to be Italian. Since it is unusual for two denominations to be of the same
type, it is possible that this coin is really a siliqua of reduced weight.
AE 4 There are two types:
(a) T 48 (1.5 g); MIRB 76; LRBC 2226. With SALVS REIPVBLICAE and a seated
154 PULCHERIA
Victory inscribing a Chi-Rho on a shield, CONS and an officina numeral—
Tolstoi’s specimen has €—in exergue. Presumably struck at Pulcheria’s
accession in 414.
(b) With CONCORDIA AVC and the empress seated facing (M/RB 79, 81; LRBC
2235), like the AE 3 of Eudoxia (291-4). Presumably struck sometime in the
420s or 430s.
EUDOCIA
Wife of Theodosius II
Augusta 2 January 423-20 October 460
(Aelia) Eudocia, whose original name was Athenais, was the daughter of Leontius, a teacher
of rhetoric and philosophy at Athens and perhaps earlier at Antioch. It is hard to disentangle
the elements of fact and fiction in the accounts of her career, despite a romantic (but well-
documented) nineteenth-century biography (Gregorovius 1882) and more critical modern stud-
ies (Bury 1923, 1.220-1, 226-31, 358-9; Holum 1982, 112 ff; Cameron 1981, 254 ff). She came
to Constantinople in 420 or 421 in pursuance of a dispute with her brothers over their inheri-
tance, and was picked by Pulcheria as a suitable bride for Theodosius because of her beauty and
her intellectual interests, despite being still formally a pagan. She was baptized under the name
of Eudocia and married to Theodosius on 7 June 421. Eighteen months later, on 2 January 423,
she was created augusta after the birth of Licinia Eudoxia and perhaps of a son, Arcadius,
though the latter, like another daughter Flaccilla, died young, Flaccilla in 431 and Arcadius at
some date unknown.
In the late 420s and throughout the 430s, she exercised considerable political influence,
taking the place at court previously occupied by Pulcheria. The contemporary historian Eva-
grius praises her beauty and scholarship, and some of her poetical works have survived (Lud-
wich 1882, 1897), though a verse paraphrase in eight books of part of the Old Testament is,
perhaps fortunately, lost. In 438, as if to console herself after Licinia Eudoxia’s departure to the
West, she went on a stately pilgrimage to Jerusalem, captivating the population of Antioch on
the way by a well-turned compliment and acquiring relics of the protomartyr St. Stephen for
the church of St. Lawrence in Constantinople. In 440/1 she lost two of her closest allies, Paulinus
who had grown up as a boyhood companion of Theodosius and been responsible for bringing
Eudocia to his attention, and Cyrus of Panopolis, a competent and popular praetorian prefect
and prefect of the city who shared the empress’ literary interests. The first was exiled to Cap-
padocia in 440 and subsequently executed, the second fell into disgrace in 441 and was made
bishop of an obscure see in Phrygia. Rumor attributed Paulinus’ downfall to Theodosius’ sus-
picions of his relations with his wife, but Malalas’ account includes elements drawn from folk-
lore, and the dates do not fit, for according to Marcellinus comes Paulinus was put to death in
440 and Eudocia was still in favor in 442/3, when she was included in Theodosius’ great Imp. 42
coinage.
Either late in 442 or in 443, the marriage broke up and Eudocia received permission to
retire to Jerusalem, where she remained until her death on 20 October 460. The date of her
exile is given as the 42nd year of Theodosius’ reign by two much later historians, Cedrenus and
Zonaras, but their regnal datings are often in error, and all that is really certain is that it was
before 444. Her sojourn in Jerusalem was not uneventful. In 444 two clerics in her household
were put to death on the orders of Saturninus, count of the domestics, who had been sent by
the emperor to enquire into their conduct, and when in revenge she had Saturninus assassi-
nated, she was punished by a drastic reduction in the size of her household. She retained the
155
156 EUDOCIA
imperial title, however; this is clear from various narrative sources and from a letter of Pope
Leo I of 15 June 453 which continues to style her augusta. In the 450s, in the aftermath of the
Council of Chalcedon, she lent her support to the Monophysite cause and was only brought
back to orthodoxy by the counsels of St. Euthymius, an abbot in the neighborhood. “The last
sixteen years of the life of this amiable lady [Saturninus would scarcely have endorsed the adjec-
tive] were spent at Jerusalem where she devoted herself to charitable work, built churches, mon-
asteries and hospices, and restored the walls of the city. . . . It is said that before her death she
repeated the denial of the slander that she had been unfaithful to her husband” (Bury 1923,
1.231).
Eudocia’s coins were formerly confused with those of the two Eudoxias, the wife of Arcadius
and her own daughter Licinia Eudoxia, but the names are different and there are no real prob-
lems over their identification (de Salis 1867; Boyce 1954). Her solidi form four classes, three of
them with parallel imperial issues in the name of Theodosius and all having on the obverse the
empress’ bust with a Manus Dei and crown above and a star accompanying the type on the
reverse.
Class 1. 423-9. VOT XX MVLT XXX and Victory-with-Cross type (T 88-90; MIRB 20;
454-5). Sometimes, on what are probably the earliest and certainly the rarest group of coins,
the bust is unusually small and elegant.
Class 2. 430. VOT XXX MVLT XXXX and same type (T 91-2; MIRB 28; 456). This group,
which is rare and has no counterpart in Theodosius’ own coinage, continues the old type but
with a new, VOT XXX legend. It was probably struck for the opening of Theodosius’ tricennalia,
before it was decided to use on her coins the seated Constantinopolis of the next class.
Class 3. 430-9. Same legend, but seated Constantinopolis on the reverse (T 87, from Amé-
court 842; MIRB 29; 457-8). This corresponds to the main coinage of Theodosius of the 430s.
Class 4. 442/3. IMP XXXXII COS XVII.P.P. and same type (T 86; MIRB 36; 459). This
corresponds to Theodosius’ coinage of the same type.
Eudocia’s rare semisses (T 93; MIRB 44; 460), having a Chi-Rho in a wreath, are undated
but were probably struck for her coronation in 423. Her common tremisses, with a cross in
wreath (T 94—6; MIRB 50; 461-72), must have been struck over a long period and no doubt
served for the empress’ almsgiving. T 97 is anomalous in that while the inscription refers to
Eudocia, the bust is one of her husband and the CONOB beneath the wreath on the reverse
lacks the usual terminal star. Tolstoi suggested that it might have been struck at Ravenna, but
the general appearance is Constantinopolitan, and there are no Western coins of the empress.
It is presumably the result of carelessness at the mint.
Eudocia’s only known silver coins are siliquae, with a cross in wreath and CONS beneath
(T 98-9; MIRB 70; 473-4), and half-siliquae, with a Chi-Rho in a wreath and nothing beneath
(T 100, from S 1.120, no. 5, pl. v.27). There is no need to follow Tolstoi and regard these as
Italian.
The only bronze coins are AE 4 of Constantinople having as reverse type the seated figure
of the empress facing, as on earlier coins of Arcadius’ wife Eudoxia (291—4), with a Concordia
Aug legend. Those with a star in the left field and the mint-signature CONS have been dated
423-5 (MIRB 80; LRBC 2230; 475), but there are others of 425—50—no doubt not later than
442—-which have CON in the exergue and either nothing in the field (LRBC 2240) or a pellet
in the right field (LRBC 2241). A supposed AE 3 of Antioch (ANT I), with a Victory inscribing
a Chi-Rho on a shield and a Salus Reipublicae legend (T 101, from S 1.121, no. 6, pl. v.24), must
be a misread coin of Eudoxia (as 287-8).
MARCIAN
25 August 450-27 January 457
Nominal associates in the East:
Pulcheria (to July 453)
Eudocia (to 20 October 460)
Associates in the West:
Valentinian III (to 455)
Petronius Maximus (455: not
recognized by Constantinople)
Avitus (455-6)
Marcian was a professional soldier from Illyria or Thrace who had risen to the rank of
tribune, and as domesticus to Aspar was known in court circles. Theodosius II had made no
formal provision for the succession, but seems on his deathbed to have indicated a preference
for Marcian, then in his late fifties and several years older than the dying emperor. The choice
was approved by Pulcheria and ratified by their formal marriage—Marcian was a widower—on
the understanding that this was to be one in name only. He was crowned augustus on 25 August
and recognized, though reluctantly, by Valentinian III, on whom the choice of the next emperor
should by right have devolved.
The choice of Marcian was popular, and his reign was uneventful (Ensslin in RE A XIV
[1930], 1514-29), being looked back to subsequently as a golden age, but the emperor was lucky.
He refused to continue the customary annual tribute of 2,100 lbs. of gold to Attila, and it was
only the latter’s Western preoccupations, followed by his unexpected death in 453, that saved
the East from the vengeance of the Hunnic king. In fact, by good financial management, Mar-
cian managed to leave over 100,000 lbs. of gold in the treasury. He died after some months’
illness on 27 January 457, leaving by his first marriage a daughter, (Aelia) Marcia Euphemia,
whom he married to Anthemius, the future emperor in the West. He assumed the consulship in
451, the year after his accession, but no consular coins are known.
Gold coins were struck by Marcian at Constantinople (mainly) and Thessalonica, the mul-
tiples and the semisses and tremisses probably at Constantinople only. The main silver denomi-
nation was the siliqua of ca. 1.3 g. The only copper coin was the nummus. Solidi were struck
during the reign in the name of Pulcheria but apparently not in that of Eudocia, while Valenti-
nian III struck solidi in Marcian’s name at Ravenna and Rome. Valentinian and Avitus also
struck tremisses in his name at Ravenna and Milan respectively. A feature found in both the
gold and the silver is the occasional use of reverse dies carried over from Theodosius II’s reign.
This results in anomalous types or inscriptions that have no proper place under Marcian.
Gold multiple. A sesquisolidus (6.66 g for 6.82 g) of the usual Adventus type with a bearded
bust of Marcian on the obverse has recently come to light (Munich, Giessener Miinzhandlung
Dieter Gorny, Auktion 46, 30.x.1989, lot 756). It is probably the same specimen as that published
by Pellerin in the eighteenth century (MIRB 1) and hitherto known only from his description.
Solidus. This denomination was struck in the East at Constantinople and Thessalonica.
157
158 MARCIAN
The Constantinopolitan solidi are of three classes, the first (450) a Cross-and-Victory type
having the emperor's helmet without frontal ornament and no officina numeral (476), the sec-
ond (450) a ceremonial issue with frontal ornament and three figures on the reverse, and the
third (450-7) having a frontal ornament, a Cross-and-Victory reverse, and officina numerals
(477-84). All have as obverse type a three-quarter facing bust like that of Theodosius II, but the
helmet was redesigned for the ceremonial coinage of 450 and the new form carried on for the
future. The ceremonial issue, struck to celebrate Marcian’s marriage, was copied from that
struck by Theodosius II on the occasion of the wedding of Licinia Eudoxia to Valentinian III
(395), but with the figure of Christ substituted for the emperor. The only known specimen, first
published in 1878 (Madden 1878, 47 and pl. 2, 14), is in the Hunterian collection in Glasgow
(Robertson 1982, 485, no. 2, and pl. 99; MJRB 3). It had formerly belonged (Eckhel, VIII.191—
2) to Joseph de France, a high official of the Austrian court, whose collection was bought en bloc
from his granddaughter by William Hunter in 1782 (Macdonald 1899-1905, I.xxxiv—xlii).
The solidi of Classes I and 3 revived the Cross-and-Victory type of Theodosius II, but with
the legend VICTORIA AVCCC followed in Class 3 by an officina letter (MIRB 5; 477—84). Both
classes have the now customary star on the reverse, but it is in the right field instead of between
the head of the Victory and the top of the cross. The change is of assistance in dating the coins
of Pulcheria. The absence of a star on T 11 is probably a die-sinker’s error. The use of three C’s,
when there were only two emperors, is anomalous, for augustae were not usually included in
the totals of imperial colleagues, but is perhaps explicable by the prominent role of Pulcheria in
the government. There is occasionally punctuation in the legend (e.g., Fagerlie 1967, nos. 351—
2; NVS.P.F.AVC), suggested no doubt by the punctuated P.P. (for pater patriae) on Theodosius
II’s Imp. 42 issue, and Marcian’s name may be spelled incorrectly with an N instead of an M
(Fagerlie 1967, nos. 352, 361).
The Thessalonican solidi form two issues (Metcalf 1988, 84) whose order is clear, though
not their precise dates. They are as follows:
(1) Bust without frontal ornament, as under Theodosius II, and reverse type that of Theo-
dosius II’s Glo(ria) orv(is) terrar(um) coinage with TESOB as mint-mark (T 1; M/RB 17). These
were evidently using up old dies of the previous reign, and since a number of specimens are
known—15 are listed in Metcalf (1988, 95, nos. 131-45)—this was evidently not an accident but
deliberate policy.
(2) As Class 3 of Constantinople but with THSOB instead of CONOB (T 15; MIRB 18;
Metcalf 1988, 95, nos. 146-50) and sometimes a pellet after CCC. This issue marks the replace-
ment of TESOB by THSOB, spelling out the Greek initial theta, as the mint-mark of Thessa-
lonica.
Semisses and Tremisses. The semissis has the traditional Victory-writing-on-shield type. The
numeral is XXXXV, the dies being a carry-over from Theodosius II’s reign and this figure be-
coming eventually accepted as regular for the denomination (T 18; M/RB 9; 485-6). The trem-
issis has the customary Victory (T 19-20; MIRB 13; 487-9), the reverse inscription being some-
times broken.
Miliarenses. These are of the usual two types but with the weights of the denominations
hopelessly confused. All have a standing emperor as reverse type, with GLORIA ROMA-
NORVM on coins with CON and a blundered CLOR(ia) ORV(i)S TERRRHR(um) on those with
TESOP (sic). The type of the heavy denomination, with the emperor raising his right hand and
holding a globe in his left, is represented by a unique specimen in Berlin (M/RB 20) having on
the obverse a bust facing left. The light denomination, with the emperor holding a spear and
COINAGE OF MARCIAN 159
resting his left hand on a shield, has a bust facing right, but it can be beardless and without a
star in the field (MIRB 20) or bearded with a star (M/JRB 19 = PCR III.1614; anomalously 5.14
g), or beardless and with TESOB in the exergue (MJRB 28 = Sebasta 1957; 505). The bearded
bust on the third coin reproduces the type of Theodosius II and was not intended as a portrait.
Siliquae (ca. 1.3 g). These are of two types, one with VOT/MVLTI/XXXxX in a wreath (T 25;
MIRB 22; 490), that is, coins struck with reverse dies carried over from the reign of Theodosius
II, and one with SAL/REI/P VI (i.e., Salus Reipublicae) in a wreath (T 23-4; MIRB 25; 491-3).
The legend was one that was going to be perpetuated in the future. A notable feature is the }
form of the V, as on the contemporary coin of Pulcheria (453) and recurring on coins of the
usurper Basiliscus in the future. Coins of this type are sometimes overstruck on siliquae of
Theodosius II (e.g., T 24).
Nummi. These are known for all the eastern mints save Alexandria, the reverse type being
a monogram of Marcian in a wreath with the mint-signature beneath.
The monogram contains basically the letters MARCIANVS, the C being square and there
being a great number of apparent varieties: Kent (in LRBC p. 110) distinguished nine, and
Adelson and Kustas (1962, 89) no fewer than 17. It is not likely that all these were intentionally
different. Some variations seem to be due to carelessness, the die-sinker having omitted or
changed the position of some stroke, while others may result from a line on the die having got
filled in with dirt or metal, so that when the coin was struck no impression appeared. One can
distinguish basically two types according to whether the C is placed to the left or the right, and
divide each into three groups according to whether there is above the monogram (a) a cross, (b)
a star, or (c) nothing. Differences such as these were obviously intentional in character. The
variant forms of the central M, and the omission of one or other horizontal stroke of the C, are
both likely to be accidental. Probably the form with PS is more “basic” than that with M , since
they are so much commoner, though the greater effort that would have been needed to form
the latter suggests that it may be the earlier of the two. Most coins have illegible obverse inscrip-
tions and mint-signatures, so that their classification has for the moment to be left uncertain
(508-12). An analysis of the forms of the bust and wreath may allow attributions in the future.
Hoard evidence shows the nummi of Marcian to have circulated over a wide area, including
Italy and North Africa. The LRBC and M/RB numberings are as follows:
LRBC MIRB Cat.
Constantinople (CON) 2247-50 29 494-504
Nicomedia (NIC, rarely NICO) 2463-9 31 506-7
Heraclea (SMH) 2005-7 30
Cyzicus (CVZ) 2608-10 32 (SMKB),
33 (CVZ)
Thessalonica (THES) 1879-80 36
Antioch (ANT) 2811-12 34
The mint-mark on the coins of Thessalonica has often the form THES, that is, with the first
letter in a cursive form. Specimens were first published by Pearce and Wood (1934, 274) in their
account of a Dalmatian hoard, but it was left to Adelson and Kustas (1962, 10) to furnish an
explanation.
Western Issues
The gold coins in the name of Marcian that were struck at Ravenna and Milan during the
160 MARCIAN
last years of Valentinian III (d. 17 March 455) and the short reign of Avitus (9 July 455-17
September 456) have been studied in detail by Lacam (1983, 113-51). The solidi are all of the
standard type of Valentinian III's last years, showing the emperor standing with his right foot
on the head of a human-headed serpent. Those of Ravenna (513; Lacam 1983, 122, pl.
30.1.i[x2], pl. 32[x10]) have RV in the field, one group of dies having these letters recut over
AR. A corresponding coin from Rome, with RM in the field, is cited by Tolstoi (T 17) from
Sabatier (1.124, no. 6; pl. v1.7) as being in the Bibliothéque Nationale, but there was some con-
fusion in Sabatier’s notes and his illustration of the reverse, with the mint-mark, is a solidus of
Severus III in the Paris collection (Kent 1990). No Roman solidus of Marcian is therefore known,
though the existence of such a coin is likely and one may yet come to light. The tremisses can
be divided between Ravenna and Milan, mainly by the form of the wreath, neat in the first case
and rough and prickly in the second, but also because the Milanese coins have the curious loop
of a badly formed P at the top of the cross. This is very clear on the specimen at DO (514; Lacam
1983, 148, pl. 41.B). The attribution of the latter to Avitus’ reign is proved by a reverse die-link
with a coin of this ruler.
LEO I
7 February 457—30(?) January 474
Eastern colleagues:
Patricius, caesar 470-1
Leo II, caesar October 473 — January 474; augustus January 474
Western colleagues:
Majorian 28 December 457-2 August 461
Severus III 19 November 461-14 November 465 (not recognized
in the East)
Anthemius 12 April 467-11 July 472
Olybrius April—2 November 472
Glycerius 3 March 473—June 474 (not recognized in the East)
Leo, a Thracian (Bessian) by race, was a professional soldier who was put forward by the
all-powerful magzster militum Aspar on Marcian’s death in order to prevent the election of the
emperor's son-in-law Anthemius, who in fact appears not to have desired the throne. Leo, a man
in his late fifties, had a mind of his own, and with singular ingratitude set about reducing the
power of the Germanic element in the army by recruiting Isaurians in their place. These were
Highlanders from southeastern Asia Minor who were excellent soldiers but whose undisciplined
behavior made them much disliked in the capital. One of those thus promoted was Tarasis, son
of Kodisas (Harrison 1981), whose abilities Leo recognized when he came to the capital in 466
and whose uncouth name was changed to Zeno in honor of another Isaurian who had held high
office in the preceding decade. The major military effort of Leo’s reign, a huge expedition
against the Vandals undertaken in 468 in alliance with the Western emperor Anthemius, was a
costly and disastrous failure, but Leo succeeded in appointing Anthemius emperor in Italy in
467 and at the time of his death was in process of establishing Julius Nepos, who had married a
relative of his wife Verina, as ruler of the West.
The last few years of Leo’s life were vexed by the problem of the succession. His only son,
whose name is not recorded, died in 463 at the age of five months. His elder daughter Ariadne
married Zeno in 466 or 467, but Zeno’s unpopularity made him unacceptable as a successor.
Aspar pushed the claims of his own son, Patricius, and in 470 obtained the nomination of the
young man as caesar and his marriage to Leo’s younger daughter Leontia. The rivalry of the
two families ended abruptly in 471, when the emperor had Aspar murdered in the palace.
Patricius, who survived the ambush in which his father and younger brother were killed, was
gravely injured, and was subsequently deprived of both the caesarship and Leontia. In October
473 Leo, still feeling unable to promote Zeno, gave Zeno’s son Leo (II) the title of caesar, and in
the following January created him Augustus. He died a few days later, the sources being in
disaccord over the precise date. It was probably 30 January (Grierson 1962, 44); other possibil-
ities are 18 January or 3 February.
161
162 LEO I
Coinage
The Eastern coinage of Leo was almost as uniform as that of Marcian. The bulk of it is in
gold and copper, and the only innovations are solidi of extreme rarity struck in association with
an unnamed caesar and the AE 2 coins minted in the last years of the reign, though the latter
had a precedent in equally rare AE 2 of Theodosius II. Because of the shortness of his name,
the die-sinkers extended the customary PP in the imperial title to PERPET, so that the obverse
legend is normally D N LEO PERPET AVC, with PERPETVVS sometimes in full at Western
mints. Gold and silver were limited in the East to Constantinople and Thessalonica, but copper
nummi were struck at a number of mints.
Constantinople
Two gold multiples are known. One is an unpublished double solidus of the same type as
that of Theodosius II (MJRB 2 = 377), with a bearded bust on the obverse and the seated
figures of Roma and Constantinopolis on the reverse. There is a photo in the Dumbarton Oaks
photofile, but its exact weight and its present whereabouts—it was said in the late 1960s to be in
the hands of a dealer at Alexandria—are equally unknown. The other multiple is an aureus,
1/60th of the Roman pound, in this collection (M/JRB 1; 515). The reverse has the Victory with
wreath and palm frequent on this denomination, and a Christogram in the left field as well as
the customary star in the right. The same type had been struck under Arcadius (T 2), but until
this specimen came to light in 1958 there had been a gap in the series until the reign of Anas-
tasius, for whom three slightly varying specimens have been recorded (MJB I.31, no. 1). It was
probably an accession issue.
The solidi form five classes:
(1) The normal Cross-and-Victory type (T 3-13; MIRB 3; 516-29) struck from 457 to at
least October 473, so that specimens are extremely common. There seem to be none without an
officina numeral, for the supplementary C on 534 entitles it to be put into a separate class.
(2) Consular solidi (T —; MIJRB 2; 530-1) having on the obverse a bearded bust of the
emperor in consular robes facing left and holding a mappa and cross-scepter. The reverse type
is a seated figure of the emperor, similarly attired and holding the same two objects but with the
mappa raised in the gesture that inaugurated the consular games. The legend, unusually for a
consular issue, is a Victoria one. Leo I was consul on five occasions, in 458, 462, 466, 471, and
473. The coin is not likely to have been struck for any of the later consulships, since there is a
subsequent issue from Thessalonica with two stars in the field, but either 458 or 462 is possible,
458 being the more likely of the two. Leo’s consular coins of Constantinople, unlike those of
Thessalonica, are extremely rare.
(3) Coins with the normal obverse but having on the reverse the legend SALVS REIPVBLI-
CAE followed by a right-angled C and as type a small figure crowned and nimbate, usually
standing on a low dais, holding a globus cruciger in his right hand and with his left arm con-
cealed under the chlamys adorned with a tablion that he wears (T 1; MJRB 11; 532). The youth-
ful figure can scarcely be Leo himself, as Tolstoi supposed, and the C following the legend points
to its being one of the two caesars created by Leo I, either Patricius who was briefly caesar in
470-1 (PLRE I, s.v. lulius Patricius 15), or Leo’s grandson Leo (II) in 473-4. Kent (1959a, 94)
and Hahn (in M/RB, p. 40) believe it to be the latter, but since there are other coinages for this
second association it seems more likely that the coins with a standing figure—there seem to be
only four specimens known, one at the Hermitage (T 1), a second here (532), a third in the
Zeccone hoard (Brambilla 1870, 21—2, no. 6, pl. 1.4), and a fourth in Istanbul—should be as-
GOLD AND SILVER COINS 163
signed to Leo I and Patricius and dated 470/1.
(4) Solidi having the usual obverse type but on the reverse the seated figures of the two
colleagues, Leo II the smaller of the two, and the same legend as on Class 3, SALVS REIPVBLI-
CAE—the P in Rezpublicae is blundered to R—followed by C (T 2; MIRB 12; 533). The few
specimens known are closely die-linked, but there are several varieties of throne—it may be
backless, or a throne with a straight or lyre-shaped back—presumably resulting from a lack of
precision in the instructions give to the die-cutters. These coins can be dated October 473—
January 474.
(5) Solidi of the normal obverse and reverse types but with reverse legend ending CCCC,
that is, with a supplementary C instead of an officina numeral following the customary CCC
(T — ; 534). This presumably marks the promotion of Leo II to the rank of augustus in January
474. The specimen at Dumbarton Oaks is the only one known to us.
The semisses (T 17-18; MIRB 5—6; 535-7) and tremisses (T 19-21; MIRB 7-9; 538-47)
are of the usual types, the semisses somewhat rare, the tremisses extremely common. A few
(e.g., T 19) have the star on the reverse in the left instead of in the usual right field. The nu-
merals inscribed by the Victory on her shield are nearly always a legible XV XXX, corresponding
to the last issue of Theodosius II, as under Marcian and quite unlike the confused inscriptions
of later reigns.
The normal siliqua of ca. 1 g (T 24—6; MIRB 20; 550-2) has as reverse type SAL/REI/PHI,
the last line blundered from PVB and the V having the form of a H, which has sometimes caused
it to be mistaken for a P. The mint-mark is CONS followed by a star. Much smaller ones of the
same type are apparently half-siliquae (T 50; MIRB 21). There are in addition a series of mul-
tiples of great rarity:
(a) A large medallion (35 mm, 12.41 g) in the Bibliothéque Nationale published by Sabatier
(1.130, no. 1, pl. vi.1 = T 22), and reproduced photographically by Pick (1927, 21), by Bellin-
ger (1958, 153 and fig. C) and as M/RB 17. It is probably a silver piece struck 24 to the pound
(theoretical wt. 13.6 g). Only the obverse, with a fine bearded bust of the emperor, belongs to
Leo; the reverse, with VOT/XXXV/MXLI/..XX in a wreath and CONS* beneath, belongs to
Theodosius II, the die being probably one of this ruler brought back into use. The flan unfor-
tunately slipped in the striking, so that the lower part of each side is damaged, and it is not clear
whether the XL for VL in MVLT is due to this or to the die-sinker’s intentional duplication of
XXXX in another form.
(b) Heavy miliarenses struck 60 to the pound having on the obverse the profile bust of the
emperor, sometimes bearded, facing right, and on the reverse his standing figure with spear
and shield, normally looking left, and a GLORIA ROMANORVM inscription. Three varieties
are recorded:
(1) With beardless bust, CON in ex. (MJRB 18a = Erste Osterreichische Spar-Casse coll., ex
Balvin coll. 5.21 g).
(2) With bearded bust, CON in ex. (M/JRB 18b = Bank Leu sale 13 (28.iv.75), lot 554. 5.32 g).
(3) With bearded bust, CONOB in ex., standing figure facing instead of looking left (MIRB 18c
= 548, ex Sternberg sale 16 (15.xi.1985), lot 363. 5.20 g).
The last coin is anomalous in having CONOB, for even if the OB be taken as representing
72 and not obryzum, it is incorrect for the weight, which is that of a coin struck 60 to the pound.
It is impossible to say when the coins were struck. The last two share a common obverse die, but
this does not necessarily mean that they formed part of the same issue. Dies for special coinages
164 LEO I
saw little use and could easily be carried over from one occasion to another.
(c) A light miliarense (4.40 g) having on the obverse a lightly bearded profile bust turned to
the left and on the right a standing emperor with his right hand raised and a globe in his left
(MIRB 19; 549).
The bulk of Leo’s bronze coinage consists of nummi, of which there are essentially five
classes but a number of varieties, and much rarer AE 2, of which there is a single type with two
different reverse legends.
The nummi have on the obverse the profile bust of the emperor with the usual legend,
greatly abbreviated, and on the reverse:
(1) A monogram (mm. CON: T 34-6; LRBC 2262-4, 2270-1; MIRB 28, 31; 562-3
2565-70).
(2) Standing emperor and captive (mm. CON or CN, cross or star in 1. field: T 31; LRBC
2265-9; MIRB 29; 571-2). T 33 (= S 1.133, no. 16, pl. vi1.7) is the same type with an incorrectly
interpreted reverse.
(3) Lion standing or crouching, the former with star in field (mm. CON: T 37—41; LRBC
2260-1; MIRB 26-7; 573-7, ?580-1).
(4) Empress standing with globus cruciger and transverse scepter, b E in field (no mm.:
T 32, reading L E for b E; LRBC 2272-5; MIRB 30; 582-6).
(5) Two enthroned figures (mm. CON: T — ; LRBC 2276; MIRB 32; Volo hoard 887, illus.).
An anomalous type (M/JRB V25) with TV/XXX/V in a wreath, as on a coin of Theodosius
II, appeared in a sale in 1988, but its apparent absence from the many hoards of the reign leaves
one in some doubt as to its authenticity.
The order of striking is discussed in LRBC (p. 44), but not entirely satisfactorily. Class 5 is
clearly the last. It is suggested that Class 3 is the first, the crouching lion preceding the standing
one, on the ground that the bust on the obverse has the fullest legend (PERPET AVC), with a
transition to PF AVC, but this is not obviously the case, and the existence of a mule between this
type and an obverse with Zeno’s name in the Volo hoard (Adelson and Kustas 1962, no. 1006)
points to the “lion” type’s being late. The list of monogram varieties in LRBC has to be extended
by those in the Yale and Volo hoards described by Adelson and Kustas (1960, 1962), though
some of these are more likely to have resulted from carelessness than from the adoption of
intentionally different forms. There is a useful table of their hoard distribution in MIJRB (p. 44).
The AE 2 all have on the obverse a profile bust of the emperor and on the reverse the
emperor standing, holding a labarum and globe, spurning a fallen captive whose hands are tied
behind him. Their diameter is 20 mm, their weight between 4 and 5 g. They form two classes:
(a) with inscription theoretically SALVS REIPVBLICAE and CON either in an exergue or
simply below the figure (T 27-9; MIRB 24; LRBC 2254-7; 561), and (b) with inscription
VIRTVS EXERCITI and CONE beneath (T 30; MIRB 23; LRBC 2251-2; 560). The inscriptions
are invariably blundered: D N LEO PRPETAG, SALVS RPVBLCA, SALVS RPVRLICA,
VIRTVS EXRCITI, etc.; also sometimes D N LEONS PP AVG in the genitive.
These two classes are absent from such hoards of nummi from sites in the interior of the
empire as have been published, but have been frequently found in the Chersonese. Charles
Robert, a French officer who served in the Crimean War and became one of the most distin-
guished numismatists of the nineteenth century, discovered a number of Leo’s coins, together
with one of Verina (below, p. 170), in the ruins of a house he excavated near Sebastopol in July
1856 (Robert 1859, 43-4). A number of similar finds have come to light in subsequent excava-
COINAGE OF THESSALONICA 165
tions (refs. in Hahn 1978, 414, 522), and it is probable that the specimens in the Hermitage and
in his own collection that are listed by Tolstoi came from the same source. Leo’s coins and those
of Verina have the CON mint-mark, and all of the Salus Reipublicae type, together with those of
Verina, are from “officina” E—the officina [ listed by LRBC is a misreading—so there is no good
reason for supposing that they were not struck in the capital, though the coins of Zeno without
mint-mark may have been minted locally (below, p. 174). We do not know why they reached the
Crimea in such numbers, or indeed what their denomination may have been. They are the size
of the old AE 2, but how they were valued is uncertain. They had a predecessor in the anoma-
lous AE 2 of Theodosius II (435), and looked forward to the nummus multiples of the last years
of the century.
Thessalonica
Leo’s coinage at Thessalonica is effectively limited to solidi (Metcalf 1988, 84—5), which are
surprisingly numerous, the only other denomination being a lightweight miliarense in the Brit-
ish Museum that appears to be unique. The mint-mark throughout is THSOB, and the coins
form two groups, one with the single star in the field that had long since become normal, and
the other with two stars, such a pair becoming in the future a regular mark of identification for
Thessalonica. Since this division occurs with both normal and consular solidi, its significance is
presumably chronological, coins with one star dating from early in the reign and those with two
stars to its later years. But when or why the transition was made we do not know, any more than
we know why the CCC of the Victory issues is sometimes followed by a pellet. The classes are as.
follows:
1. Normal solidi, with Victory holding a long cross and the CCC sometimes followed by a
pellet (T —; R 251; MIRB 15; Metcalf 1988, 95—6, nos. 151-60; 553-4).
2. Consular solidi having on the obverse a bearded consular bust facing left and holding
mappa and cross-scepter, on the reverse a seated consular figure with raised mappa and cross;
one star in the field (T 15; R 252; MIRB 13; Metcalf 1988, 97, nos. 191-209; 556-8). The
obverse legend is unbroken. This is the Thessalonican version of a Constantinopolitan consular
coin already described, but whether it belongs to Leo’s first, second, or third consulship is im-
possible to say.
3. Normal solidi as Class 1 but with two stars in the field (T 14; MIJRB 16; Metcalf 1988, 96,
nos. 161—85; 555). A pellet after the C occurs only rarely.
4. Consular solidi of the same type as before, but with two stars in the field and the obverse
legend broken (T 16; M/RB 14; Metcalf 1988, 96, nos. 187—90; 559). This consular issue is much
rarer than the first.
The only recorded silver coin is a light miliarense (4.53 g) in the British Museum having on
the obverse a beardless profile bust to the right and on the reverse the emperor standing with
spear and shield, looking left (T 23 = MIRB 22 = PCR III.1621). The mint-mark, THSOB, is
equally inappropriate to the metal and the weight, and the reverse inscription is blundered,
Glor(ia) orbis terrar(um) becoming GLOR ORVS TERRRHL.
Other Eastern Mints
Nummi corresponding to four of the Constantinopolitan types—one would scarcely expect
any of the rare Two-Seated-Figures type—were struck at the minor Eastern mints, but those of
the otherwise common Standing-Empress type are very rare, and the recording of the others is
patchy, so that apparent gaps in their mint distribution may well be filled in the future. There is
166 LEO I
considerable diversity in the obverse inscriptions and in the form of Leo’s monogram.
Monogram Type
(a) Heraclea, w. SMH: LRBC 2008; MIRB 34-5
(b) Cyzicus, w. CVZ or KVZ: LRBC 2612-13 (CVZ); 564 (KVZ); MIRB 40-1
(c) Thessalonica, w. THS: LRBC — ; MIRB 45-6
Emperor-and-Captive Type
(a) Nicomedia, w. NIC: LRBC 2471-3; MIRB 37
Lion Type
(a) Heraclea, w. SMHA, lion walking r., star in r. field: LRBC 2009; MIRB 33
(b) Nicomedia, w. NIC: LRBC 2470 (lion walking r., star in r. field); 578 (lion crouching);
MIRB 36
(c) Cyzicus, w. CVZ or KVZ: LRBC 2611 (CVZ); MIRB 39
(d) Antioch, w. ANTx; LRBC 2813 (lion standing); 579 (lion crouching); MIRB 42
(e) Alexandria, w. ALEx; LRBC — ; MIRB 43
Standing-Empress Type
(a) Nicomedia, w. NIC: LRBC — ; MIRB 38; Culica 1972, 287, no. 178 (one specimen among
the many of the period found at a site on the south bank of the Danube near Izvoarele
in the Dobrudja)
Western Mints
Coins were struck in Leo’s name at the three Italian mints but not at Arles, and are virtually
limited to gold; the only silver coin is a half-siliqua of Rome. The latter mint also struck semisses,
but otherwise the coins are solidi and tremisses, the solidi initially and at Milan permanently
with mint-marks, the tremisses without them. The coinage is discussed at length by Ulrich-Bansa
(1949, 292-302) and Lacam (1983, 370-82, 391-5, 493-505, 523-5).
The solidi form two distinct groups, one of Western and the other of Eastern type, which
divide chronologically, the first one ending with the accession of Anthemius in 467. In that year
Anthemius’ solidi showing the standing figures of Leo and himself began to be issued. Since
there are no corresponding coins in Leo’s name, these were presumably intended as a substitute
for the normal “collegial” coinage, though Ulrich-Bansa and Lacam prefer to attribute to An-
themius’ reign the bulk of the “Eastern” group. There is also a unique coin with a quite unusual
“Standing-Emperor’” type struck at Milan.
Solidi of Western Type, 461—7
These solidi have on the obverse a profile bust with the legend D N LEO PERPETVVS AVC
(or variant) and on the reverse a standing emperor with his right foot on the head of a human-
headed serpent and the legend VICTORIA AVCCC, with mint initials in the field and COMOB
in the exergue. The close resemblance between the busts on many of the coins in the name of
Leo with those on coins of Severus III shows that most of them can be assigned to the years of
Severus’ reign (461—5). References are as follows:
(1) Rome, RM in field (PERPETVVS). T 45; R 253; PCR II1.1618; Lacam 371-3, 375, pl.
99.1, 2; 587.
WESTERN COINS 167
(2) Milan, MD in field (PERPETV or PERPET). T 43; UB pl. x1.131—3; Lacam 376-8, pl.
101; 589-90.
(3) Ravenna, RV in field (PERPETV). T 44, from Sabatier; Lacam 374-6, pl. 100.1, 2.
The types are those traditional in the West since the 420s, and Rome was clearly the chief
mint. Since there are no coins in Leo’s name reproducing the characteristic bust of Majorian
with spear and shield, it would seem that Leo was ignored numismatically in the West prior to
the accession of Severus III in 461. An argument to the contrary is the existence of a Milanese
tremissis in Leo’s name sharing a common reverse die with ones of Majorian (UB pl. x11.136/7,
137*), but the die was old and cracked, so that while certainly in use in Majorian’s time, it could
easily have been set aside and brought back into use later. A profile bust, moreover, lasted just
into Anthemius’ reign (cf. 901), so one must leave open the possibility of the “Western” type of
solidi continuing to be struck down to the accession of this ruler in April 467.
Solidus with a Standing Emperor, 465/7
This unique solidus in the Vienna collection was published by Eckhel and noted by Sabatier
(11.131, no. 7), but was overlooked by Tolstoi. The obverse is a profile bust with the legend D N
LEO PERPETVVS AVG. The reverse shows a youthful standing figure in military costume,
looking left and holding a globus cruciger and vexillum, with MD in the field and COMOB in
the exergue. The reverse legend is VIRTVS AGVSTI (sic). It is illustrated by Ulrich-Bansa (pl.
x11.135), and there is a fine enlargement in Lacam (1983, 394, pl. 103.B).
Since the coin has a profile bust, it must be earlier than 467; it cannot therefore be a Western
equivalent of the Eastern solidus with the standing figure of the caesar Patricius attributable to
470/1 (532; see above, p. 162). Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 294—5) attributed it to the period of Major-
ian or Severus III, though without being able to suggest any particular occasion for its issue.
Lacam (1983, 392—5; 1988, 236—9) argues persuasively that the unusual type and legend were
due to an initiative of Ricimer (or his advisers in such matters) during the interregnum of 465/
7, though it is surprising to see the emperor represented in so youthful a fashion.
Solidi of Eastern Type, 472—4
The second main group of Italian solidi struck in Leo’s name carry on the facing armored
bust introduced under Anthemius but adopt for the reverse the Victory-and-Cross type of Con-
stantinople, since two standing figures were no longer appropriate. The obverse legend is always
D N LEO PERPET AVG. It is something of a mockery to call the coin a “main” group, for the
coins, though distinctive, are extremely rare. Those of Milan have MD in the field and dispense
with the star in the field of Eastern solidi; they also retain COMOB. The coins may be listed as
follows:
(1) Milan, MD in field. T —; UB pl. x1m1.134; Lacam 495, pl. 128; 591.
(2) Rome, star in field, -COMOB,, pellet after CCC. Signorelli sale I11.1475. The style of
the bust is identical with that of some of Anthemius’ solidi with RM in field.
(3) Ravenna, no star in field, COMOB. Lacam 495-6, pl. 128, as Rome.
(4) Uncertain mint. Star in r. field, COMOB,-, 2 pellets after CCC. Lacam 496, pl. 128, as
Rome.
Ulrich-Bansa assigned these latter coins to the time of Anthemius (467-72), but while frac-
tional gold coinage in Leo’s name was probably being struck during Anthemius’ reign, it seems
more likely that his solidi were intended to do duty for both sovereigns and that those of Eastern
type in Leo’s name were introduced after Anthemius’ death, being struck between that and the
end of Leo’s own reign in 474. Such a conclusion is supported both by their extreme rarity, in
contrast to the commonness of Anthemius’ issues, and by the fact that there were none in the
168 LEO I
huge Casa delle Vestali hoard, buried probably in 472 and containing 355 solidi of Anthemius’
reign. The mints would have found it natural to adopt an “Eastern” type for coins in Leo’s name,
but were evidently somewhat at a loss over how to cope with the details. Milan put the customary
MD in the field and ignored the star characteristic of Eastern solidi. Rome and Ravenna dropped
their customary mint-marks, sometimes took over the star, and introduced pellets, either in
association with COMOB or after the legend—in the latter case they were perhaps thought of
as a substitute for the Constantinopolitan officina numeral—so that at least mint officials could
recognize their own products even if the general public could not do so.
There also exist a number of solidi which are at first glance Constantinopolitan, but which
on closer examination present such anomalies of style or detail—oddly formed letters, a six-
pointed star in the field instead of an eight-pointed one—that Ulrich-Bansa, and more system-
atically Lacam (1983, 496-505), have been disposed to attribute an Italian origin to them. Leo’s
reign, however, lasted 17 years and the output of Constantinople was enormous, so that one can
expect considerable variety in style and detail in its products. It is also difficult to imagine the
regular Italian mints, or even mints set up temporarily for military or other reasons, choosing
to imitate Constantinopolitan coins, officina numerals and all. It seems on the whole more likely
that coins with CONOB and an officina numeral are the products of the mint of Constantinople
that they claim to be.
Semisses
Semisses were struck only in Rome and are of a single reverse type, a Chi-Rho in a wreath
surrounded by SALVS REIPVBLICAE. The details of the obverse divide them into the same
two groups as the solidi:
(1) D N LEO PERPETVVS AVC (unbroken), bust with rosette diadem. T 46 ex Consul
Weber sale 11.2972 = UB pl. M.d = Lacam 392, pl. 103A, as “Interregnum.” Date:
461/5, the style and details of the bust being identical with those on the fairly common
semisses of Severus III (896).
(2) D N LEO PERPET AVC (broken PER — PET), bust with pearl diadem. R 255; over-
looked by Lacam. Date: 467/72, the style and details of the bust corresponding to that
of Anthemius (926).
Tremisses
The Italian tremisses in Leo’s name are all of the same type, having on the reverse a cross
in wreath with COMOB beneath, and despite the absence of a specific mint-mark, their distri-
bution between Rome and Milan—Lacam also gives some to Ravenna—is easily made. Those of
Rome have a neat, compact wreath, while those of Milan have an untidy, straggly one. The
Roman coins form two groups corresponding to the two varieties of semisses attributable to the
reigns of Severus III and Anthemius (and later) respectively, though the legend is usually PER-
PET AVG, not PERPETVVS AVG, no doubt because of the little space available. The Milan
coins have no comparable differentiation but are probably mostly of the time of Severus III, like
the majority of the solidi. The coins can be classed as follows:
(1) Rome. Neat wreath, rosette-diademed bust. T 47; UB pl. M.e; R 257; Lacam 379, pl.
102; 391-2, pl. 103 A, as “Interregnum”; 588. Date: 461-5.
(2) Rome. Neat wreath, pearl-diademed bust. R 260. Date: 467/74.
(3) Milan. Straggly wreath, pearl-diademed bust. T—; R 258; UB pl. x11.136, 138, 144
(PERPETVVS), 145*; Lacam 392, pl. 103A, 523-4. Date: 467/74. They can sometimes
be more closely dated by style or die-links, as in the case of the one die-linked to Ma-
jorian noted above.
WESTERN COINS 169
Half siliqua. T 49 = UB pl. M.f. Date: 461/5.
This has the same reverse type as the semissis, a Chi-Rho in wreath, but there is no legend.
The obverse, with a PERPETVVS legend and a rosette-diademed bust, shows the coin to belong
to the reign of Severus III, for whom this denomination was also struck (899).
VERINA
Empress, wife of Leo I
Augusta 457-84
(Aelia) Verina—her name is spelled with a beta as Berina in the Greek sources—was married
to Leo I before his accession, and thus had the rank of augusta from 457 onward. Her parentage
is unrecorded, but with her brother Basiliscus she played a major political role under Leo and
during the years after his death. She was presumably the chief advocate of her husband's disas-
trous choice of Basiliscus as leader of the Vandal expedition in 468, and in 474, if two contem-
porary historians can be trusted, it was she who organized the conspiracy that led to the over-
throw of Zeno and the elevation of Basiliscus (below, p. 177). After the triumph of the latter,
which was not at all what she had planned, she started to intrigue for Zeno’s restoration and, on
being discovered, had to go into hiding. After Zeno’s return, she was imprisoned at Papirios in
Isauria, but in 484 was released as a result of the revolt of Illus and induced to crown the new
rebel Leontius. She justified this action in a remarkable circular pointing out that, as a legitimate
augusta, she could raise whom she willed to the imperial office. After the failure of the revolt,
she took refuge with the other rebels at the strong fortress of Cherris in Isauria (autumn 484)
and died shortly afterward. Her career has been studied in detail by Brooks (1893).
The nummi of Leo with the standing figure of Verina accompanied by the letters b E on
the reverse have been described above (pp. 165-6). The major series struck in her name only,
styling her AEL VERINA AVC, are of three denominations: solidi, tremisses, and AE 2. Her
bust is remarkable, for its strongly delineated features fit in so well with what we know of her
formidable and domineering character that it is hard to resist the view that some degree of
portraiture was intended.
The solidi (T 51—5; MIRB 4) show her profile bust with the customary Manus Dei above her
head holding a crown. The V in her name has usually the form of 4. The reverse legend is
usually without an officina letter (593), but one is sometimes present, A, B, A, H, Z, and © (594),
being recorded. There are some die-links between coins with and coins without officina letters.
Although not particularly rare—between 20 and 30 specimens are known—they are not among
the numerous coins of this period represented in Scandinavian hoards. The tremisses (T 56;
MIRB 10; 595-7) are of the customary type, with a cross in wreath on the reverse.
Much more unusual are the AE 2 struck in Verina’s name (T 57—8; MIRB 25; 598). They
correspond in size and weight (ca. 5 g) to those of Leo I (above pp. 164—5) and Zeno (below, p.
174), and are evidently of the same denomination. They have a SALVS REIPVBLICAE legend
and a seated Victory inscribing a Chi-Rho on a shield, with CONE in the exergue, the E being a
square Roman one and not the Greek epsilon that was the numeral 5. The type is that employed
earlier in the century for Eudoxia (above, p. 133). Like Leo’s coins, they found their way in some
numbers to the Crimea, for the specimen here was that found by the French ofhicer-numismatist
Charles Robert in 1856 in a house he excavated at Cape St. George (Robert 1859, 43-4), and
the two in the Hermitage recorded by Tolstoi are likely to be also from the Crimea.
170
COINAGE OF VERINA 171
The coins in Verina’s name are generally believed to have been struck late in Leo I’s reign,
for their portraiture is very close to that of the coins of Zenonis and Ariadne, the use of for V
recurs on Basiliscus’ coins, and the AE 2 denomination just lasted into the reign of Zeno. But
the presence of one of her solidi in a Tunisian hoard of 1912 (below, pp. 293-4) that appears to
date from ca. 460 indicates that some minting probably goes back to 457 and her initial procla-
mation as augusta. It is also possible that some of her coins were still being struck in 474, during
the nominal reign of Leo II, but any later minting is unlikely.
LEO II and ZENO
474
Leo II, co-augustus with LeoI January 474
Sole augustus ?January—February 474
Co-augustus with Zeno 9 February-November 474
Leo II was born in 467 and proclaimed caesar by his grandfather Leo I in October 473
(above, p. 161). In January 474 he was proclaimed augustus, and Leo I’s death a few days after-
ward (?30 January) left him technically sole emperor. This incongruous situation ended on 9
February, when the six-year-old boy crowned his father as his colleague. The joint reign ended
with his death the following November, the precise date being unknown.
It is not likely that any coins were struck during the few days of Leo II’s sole reign—perhaps
a semissis with a very youthful bust illustrated by Hahn (MIRB “Leo I” 5) might qualify—but
gold coins of his reign with Zeno, especially solidi of Class II, are relatively common. The ob-
verse legend on all is D N LEO ET ZENO P P AVC, the second C that one would expect being
probably omitted through the die-sinkers’ ignorance of customary Latin usage. The nobvlissemus
Caesar Leo sometimes associated with Zeno on coins was not Leo II but apparently a son of
Armatus who was briefly a colleague of Zeno, and the coins belong to the latter’s reign (below,
pp. 181-2).
The solidi of Leo I] and Zeno form two classes:
(1) With Cross-and-Victory reverse (IT 4; MIRB 2; 599), the legend being VICTORIA
AVCCC and there being no officina letter, as with the initial issues of other reigns. The issue
probably only lasted a few weeks and is much rarer than Class II, with only about ten specimens
recorded. There are several die-links between it and Class II.
(II) With two seated figures on the reverse (T 1-3; MIRB 1; 600-3), the diminutive figure
of Leo II having the place of honor on the left from the spectator’s viewpoint. The legend is
SALVS REIPVBLICAE, usually but not invariably with an officina numeral. Die-links between
different officinae are frequent (Grierson 1961; others could now be added).
Semisses (T 6; M/IRB 4; R 274) and tremisses (T 7, but this specimen is false; MJRB 5;
R 275) are of the usual types, and are not represented here. No silver denominations are known,
and a nummus with a monogram attributed to the joint reign by Pochitonov (1980) is really one
of the many varieties of that of Zeno.
Julius Nepos became emperor in Italy in June 474, halfway through the joint reign of Leo
II and Zeno. Joint rule at Constantinople was never numismatically very acceptable in the West;
if coins were struck in the name of an Eastern colleague, they were normally struck in the name
of the senior emperor only. Whether Nepos minted solidi or tremisses in the name of Leo II we
do not know; they would be indistinguishable from those struck by his predecessors in the name
of Leo I. But he did strike at Rome in Leo’s name a half-siliqua published by Ulrich-Bansa from
his collection having as reverse type an eagle with wings unfurled having a cross above its head
(Ulrich-Bansa 1942, 14, pl. 1.17). Ulrich-Bansa discusses the possibility of the coin being an issue
of an earlier emperor in the name of Leo I, but the type exists also for Zeno and the attribution
172
COINAGE OF LEO II AND ZENO 173
to Leo II is more likely. Its existence is important, for it determines the date (474) of the revival
of an effective silver coinage in Italy and Nepos’ responsibility for it. It is probable that half-
siliquae with a standing Tyche were also minted in Leo’s name at Ravenna, since such coins exist
for Nepos and were continued by Romulus Augustulus in his own name and that of Basiliscus,
but no specimen has yet come to light.
A few specimens exist of an Italian nummus having on the obverse a profile helmeted bust
of Zeno and on the reverse a Victory dragging a captive left, with a reversed Christogram in the
left field (Bendall 1978). The obverse legend is D N ZENO ... AVG and the reverse one D N
LEO ..., while the reverse type harks back to a common one of the beginning of the century.
The correct attribution of the coin depends on whether the Leo in the reverse legend is de-
scribed as caesar or augustus, but since the type was continued on a coin best ascribed to the first
reign of Zeno alone (winter 475/6), it can be provisionally ascribed to Leo II and Zeno despite
the fact of the obverse being occupied by Zeno. A specimen seen in 1986 had the Christogram
recut as an S, presumably referring to the second officina of the mint of Rome.
ZENO
First sole reign, November 474-9 January 475
Zeno’s “first” reign was very brief, from some unknown date in November 474 to his re-
placement by Basiliscus on 9 January 475, so few coins are likely to have been struck in his name.
He did not abandon the imperial title during his exile from the capital, for there is a unique
solidus in the British Museum (MIRB 5), acquired only in 1979, which was minted at Antioch
(mm. ANTIOB) sometime during his absence from Constantinople when he presumably stayed
in the city. The obverse legend is DNZENOP — ERPETAVC.
The only coins assignable to the first reign are as follows:
(1) Solidi on which the tails of the imperial diadem curl upward (M/JRB 1), as on solidi of
Leo I, of Leo II's co-rulership with Zeno, and of the reign of Basiliscus, instead of downward,
as on many solidi of Basiliscus’ and Marcus’ joint reign and on the vast majority of Zeno’s own
coins, that is, those struck after his restoration. The criterion, however, whose relevance was first
noted by Kent 1959, is not absolute, since some of the coins of Zeno and the caesar Leo have
both varieties, and it is likely that over a short period both varieties were in use simultaneously.
The obverse legend also usually breaks ZENOP — ERP instead of ZENO — PERP, as on the vast
majority of the emperor's solidi. Those attributable to the first reign are quite rare—only 22
seem to be recorded, including one in a hoard of the reign of Anastasius found near Jericho
(Hahn 1973, with a list of specimens known to him)—and are not represented in the collection
here.
It is probable that some of Zeno’s semisses and tremisses also go back to this period, but
there is no obvious way of determining which they were, so it has seemed better to catalogue
them under Zeno’s second reign.
(2) AE 2 (MIRB 23; 604) having as reverse type the emperor holding a long cross and globe
and spurning a bound captive, the legend, somewhat inappropriately for the type, being a blun-
dered version of CONCORDIA RO(manorum). The coin is related in size and general aspect
to the AE 2 of Leo (560-1) and Verina (598), and like them is not known to have been found
except at Cherson (2 specimens: Belova 1941, 327, nos. 2, 3; no. 2 = Anokhin 1977, 156, no.
309) or at Sebastopol (one in 1949: Kropotkin 1962, no. 217) or in the neighborhood (Kropotkin
1962, no. 220: 7 specimens, with 32 of Leo, at Streltsaya Bay, ca. 1900). Since there is no CON
mint-mark, as there is on Leo’s and Verina’s coins, it has been suggested that they were minted
at Cherson, perhaps unofficially, to supply a local demand for this denomination (cf. Anokhin
1977, 98; Sokolova 1983, 17-18; against, Hahn 1978, 414). This is perhaps supported by the
obverse legend being as badly blundered as is the reverse, PERP AVC becoming RPPE AC, but
since CON is also dropped from Zeno’s nummi, it seems better to leave the coins to Constanti-
nople.
(3) Eastern nummi having as reverse type a standing figure of the emperor in military
costume. There are several varieties: (a) with him holding a long cross and a globe and the letters
ZE NO in the field (M/JRB 27 = LRBC 2278 = Grierson 1948, 226, no. 3, unicum now at DO)
174
COINAGE OF ZENO, 474-5 175
(605), (b) with him holding a spear and globe (M/RB 28; Adelson and Kustas 1962, nos. 1003-—
4, one with NIC in the exergue), (c) with him holding a globus cruciger and suppressing a
captive (M/RB 24), and (d) with him holding a labarum and globus cruciger (Adelson and Kustas
1962, no. 1005, with enlargement). Adelson and Kustas suggest that the religious nature of the
last associates it with the issue of the Henoticon in 481, but it is more natural to class the three
with the other figural types of the end of Leo’s reign and date them 474/5, for their rarity and
designs equally differentiate them from the monogrammatic nummi of Zeno’s second reign. The
variations between them probably result from separate mints interpreting a single mint instruc-
tion in different ways, though Hahn (in M/JRB) would attribute the first and second both to
Nicomedia.
(4) Western (Italian) nummi of great rarity and presumably of the mint of Rome (LRBC
2282 A) having on the obverse the legend D N ZENO /// and a helmeted bust to the right, and
on the reverse VICT[ORIA AVGG] and a badly designed Victory dragging a captive to the left,
with a reversed Christogram in the left field (MJRB 25). The type continues that of Zeno and
Leo II already described. It was published by Haines in 1946 from a specimen in his collection
and now in the Barber Institute of Fine Art at the University of Birmingham (Haines 1946, 33
and pl. 4.4). There was another on the London market in 1986.
Western (Italian) solidi and tremisses in Zeno’s name may well have been struck by his West-
ern colleague Julius Nepos in 474/5, but they cannot be satisfactorily distinguished from those
struck after 476. The same is true of the half-siliquae in his name of Ravenna (with RV and
Tyche) and Rome (with eagle).
ARIADNE
Empress, wife in turn of Zeno and Anastasius
Augusta 474(?)—515
Ariadne, the elder of Leo I’s two daughters, was married to Zeno in 466/7, and their son
Leo (II) was associated with his grandfather in 473. It was perhaps at that time that she was.
created augusta, though it may not have been until the accession of Zeno. She accompanied her
husband into exile in 475 and returned with him in 476, but we know nothing of her further
career until Zeno’s death in 491. She was then responsible for securing the accession of Anastas-
ius, with whom she had been on friendly terms and whose good qualities she appreciated, and
married him on 20 May 491, forty days after Zeno’s funeral, to help secure his position. She
died in 515. Though little is known about her, it is clear that she was a woman of capacity and
good judgment.
The only coins known to have been struck in Ariadne’s name are exceedingly rare solidi
and tremisses of the customary types minted at Constantinople. The solidus (T 70; MIRB 9) is
known in at least three specimens, one of which, from a Scandinavian find, provides a welcome
confirmation for the authenticity of solidi otherwise somewhat suspect because of their lack of
the customary Manus Dei and crown above the empress’ head. The tremisses (T 71-2; MIRB
17), of which about ten specimens are known (606), have usually CONOB and a star beneath
the wreath, though the final letters and star are not always clear—OB is unusual on tremisses—
and one that appeared to read simply CONO (S pl. vit1.12) served as a model for a forgery of
Cigoi (Brunetti 1966, no. 441). An anomalous tremissis with a Victory reverse (MIJRB 18 = Hess-
Bank Leu sale, 5.v.1965, lot 562) is the result of an accidental muling of an obverse die of
Ariadne with a reverse one of her husband. It is probable that all the coins should be dated to
474-5, following on Zeno’s accession.
176
BASILISCUS
Emperor 9 January 475—August 476
Colleague: his son Marcus, from the late summer of 475,
first as caesar and subsequently as augustus
Basiliscus was a general of mediocre ability who probably owed his original promotion to
the fact of his being brother of Empress Verina and consequently brother-in-law of Leo I. He
was magister militum in Thrace in the 460s and consul in 465. In 468 he was commander-in-chief
of the unfortunate expedition against the Vandals that was the major disaster of Leo’s reign, but
with Verina’s help he recovered from the inevitable disgrace that followed and was caput senatus
in 474. In the autumn of that year, he plotted against Zeno with Illus, a trusted Isaurian general,
and his nephew Armatus, a favorite of Verina. The dowager empress resented having to take
second place to her daughter Ariadne and planned to marry her lover Patricius, a former master
of the offices, make him emperor, and thus become empress a second time. She succeeded in
persuading Zeno that his life was in danger and that he must flee the capital, which he did on 9
January 475 in company with his wife and a small band of supporters. Verina was immediately
double-crossed by Basiliscus, who seized the throne for himself and put Patricius to death.
Basiliscus’ reign lasted twenty months. He created his wife Zenonis augusta, probably in
January 475, and his son Marcus first caesar and then augustus later in the year. But he was
quite unfitted to rule; he could control neither his ministers nor his household, and his Mono-
physite leanings earned him widespread unpopularity. In 476 discontented elements in the cap-
ital got in touch with Zeno, who had had no difficulty in maintaining himself in Isauria, and
Armatus, who was sent against him, agreed to betray him in return for the promise of the post
of magister militum for life and the rank of caesar for his son Basiliscus. Zeno reoccupied the
capital without serious resistance in August 476, and Basiliscus and his family sought sanctuary
in a church, giving themselves up only in return for an undertaking that they would not be
executed. They were exiled to Cappadocia, and Zeno observed the letter of his agreement by
having them immured in a dried-up reservoir where they starved to death. The sensational
character of the events of the two years following Leo I’s death resulted in their being much
better documented than other imperial successions of the century.
The coins of Basiliscus, and of Basiliscus and Marcus, are common despite the shortness of
the reign, but are practically limited to solidi and tremisses, the semisses, silver coins, and nummi
all being rare. No AE 2 corresponding to those of Leo I, Verina, and Zeno are known, and it
seems likely that the denomination was discontinued. The eastern mints were Constantinople
and—exceptionally—Thessalonica, but Basiliscus was recognized in the West and coins were
minted in his name at Ravenna and Milan. The coins can be classed chronologically into those
of Basiliscus alone, those of Basiliscus in association with Marcus as caesar, of which two types
are known, and those with Marcus as augustus, which are common. Those in the name of Zen-
onis are dealt with separately. Kent’s view that the Zeno and the Leo who appear as caesars on
some rare solidi and tremisses were younger brothers of Marcus, and the coins thus belong to
Basiliscus’ reign, is discussed below under that of Zeno. A notable feature of most coins of the
177
178 BASILISCUS
second and third groups is the use of b for B and P for V in the spelling of Basiliscus’ name
and T for T in et.
Basiliscus alone (January—late summer 475)
Constantinople
The solidi are of the usual type (T 73-9; M/RB 1), an initial issue of coins without officina
numeral (607) being followed by ones having A—I (608-12). The ends of the tails of the imperial
diadem curl upward, as under Leo I and during Zeno’s first reign. The semissis (T 81 = S 5;
S 4 is an error; M/RB 3-4) is extremely rare, and has the usual Victory inscribing vota numerals
on a shield. The Christogram in the lower right field has the loop of the P sometimes turned to
the left (MMAG Basel sale, 19.vi.1964, lot 521), sometimes to the right (Glendining sale
7.11.1957, lot 500). The tremissis (T 82; MZRB 5; 613-15) is common and requires no comment.
No siliqua has been recorded, but there is at Vienna a cast of a miliarense of a Standing-
Emperor type (M/JRB 12 = Longuet 1957, 41, no. 77, pl. 11.247). Nummi exist with the emper-
or’s monogram (M/RB 13).
Thessalonica
Only solidi are known, of the usual type and with mint-mark THSOB (T 80; M/RB 11). Ten
specimens are listed by Metcalf (1988, 97, nos. 212-21).
Italian Mints
Basiliscus’ reign (January 475—August 476) corresponded in part to the final months of
Julius Nepos’ effective reign in Italy (June 474—October 475), in part to the ten months of
Romulus Augustulus’ usurpation (October 475—September 476). None of the Italian ccins
struck in his name includes that of Marcus, but junior colleagues in the East were customarily
ignored in the West, and the coins might have been minted anytime in Basiliscus’ reign. Lacam
(1983, I1.750—64) has discussed at length the attributions of the few known solidi and tremisses,
none of which has any mint-mark. He makes of them two groups, one attributable to Julius
Nepos, who would thus have recognized Basiliscus’ usurpation—this is not impossible, despite
the silence of the written sources—and the other of Romulus Augustulus. Most of the coins are
attributed to Milan, including the solidus and tremissis here (616, 617), the solidus being of
Nepos’ reign, the tremissis of Romulus’. Solidi of a somewhat different style he attributes to
Ravenna under Romulus, though whether the stylistic differences in the case of either solidi or
tremisses justify a differentiation in ruler as well as in mint is open to doubt.
There are also silver half-siliquae of Ravenna of the type introduced by Nepos and contin-
ued by Romulus having on the reverse a turreted figure holding staff and cornucopia and rest-
ing her right foot on a prow, with R V in the field (T “Zeno,” no. 87). The coin was already
known to Sabatier (1.144, no. 8, pl. v1.18), and the Tolstoi specimen appears to be genuine, as
does the one here (618), but there is a forgery of Cigoi (Brunetti 1966, no. 448, not illus.). S 9,
with an alleged Urbs Roma reverse, must be either a misread coin of an earlier emperor or the
result of a recut die, for the type had long since disappeared, and the same is true of the alleged
AE 2 (S 10, from Mionnet).
Basiliscus with Marcus as Caesar (late summer 475?)
This association is known only from two types of solidi of extreme rarity (MIRB 6, 8), one
with two seated emperors and the other (619) a Cross-and-Victory type, and both having as
BASILISCUS AND MARCUS 179
obverse legend D N BASILISCI ET MARCI C in contrast to the later legend D N BASILISCI
ET MARC P AVC. The legend can only be construed as Basilisct (augusti understood) et Marci
C(aesaris); cf. the C on the coin of Leo I with the caesar Patricius (above, p. 162) and the Zeno et
Leo nov. Caes. inscription discussed later. The genitive Basvlisci et Marci, which carries on into the
next series, presumably results from the die-sinker having misunderstood a directive to put
nomina Basilisci et Marci on the coins. The rounded T in et also carries over on to a few dies of
the next series. We do not know the exact dates of Marcus’ caesarship, which is referred to in a
number of narrative sources and in the text of Basiliscus’ circular condemning the acts of Chal-
cedon and the Tome of Leo (Evagrius III.4, without date), but the extreme rarity of the coins
shows that it must have been very short (late summer 475?).
Basiliscus with Marcus as Augustus (late summer 475—August 476)
Coins in the names of the two emperors jointly as augusti are known in gold and copper
and are all of Constantinople, the solidi being surprisingly common for such a short reign. The
solidus obverse is of the usual type, with the legend D N BASILISCI ET MARC P AVC and the
legend normally breaking Basilisci-et but sometimes Basilisc-iet. The reverses are of two types,
one with the usual Cross and Victory (T 89-92; M/RB 8) and the other, appreciably rarer, with
the two seated figures traditional for colleagues, Marcus being shown very small and the legend
being SALVS REIPVBLICAE followed by an officina letter (T 88; MIRB 7). The Cross-and-
Victory series forms two groups, however, one with the ends of the diadem tails of the imperial
bust curling upward and the other with them curling downward, as is also normal for the ob-
verses of coins with two-figure reverses. Since the only die-links between the two types seem to
occur with obverses having the tails curling upward, it seems likely that the introduction of the
two-figure type, perhaps in January 476 when Basiliscus assumed the consulship, was accom-
panied by a slight redesigning of the obverse. The coins would thus form three groups:
(a) Cross-and-Victory type, diadem tails curling upward: late summer—December 475 (620).
(b) Two-figure type, diadem tails curling upward (621) or downward (e.g., Ars Classica sale,
3.x.1934, lot 2022): ?January 476.
(c) Cross-and-Victory type, diadem tails curling downward: January—August 476 (622-4).
Examples of the two-figure type associated with obverses having diadem tails curling upward
are mules between Classes (a) and (b).
Semisses of Basiliscus and Marcus of the usual type, though with a cross instead of a Chris-
togram in the lower right field, were unknown to Sabatier and Tolstoi, but at least one specimen
exists (MJRB 9). The tremisses (T 93; R 306; MIRB 10; 625-6) are all of the customary type
and, unlike the solidi, somewhat rare.
Nummi with a joint monogram containing the letters b S M R (LRBC 2283-6) are known
from several late fifth- and sixth-century hoards, notably that from Volo (Adelson and Kustas
1962, nos. 1031-41; MIRB 16). Fragmentary readings from several specimens allow the obverse
legend to be reconstructed as DN BASIL ET MAR. The Volo hoard also included (no. 1042) a
single specimen of another type with the name of Basiliscus alone on the obverse and two seated
figures on the reverse (M/RB 15).
ZENONIS
Wife of Basiliscus
Augusta 475-6
Aelia Zenonis, wife of Basiliscus and mother of Marcus, was proclaimed augusta by her
husband after his accession in January 475 and put to death in his company after his downfall
in August 476. Nothing is known of her family, but her name suggests some relationship to
Zeno.
The only known coins of Zenonis are solidi and nummi, all of extreme rarity. The solidi
(R 307; MIRB 2; T “Zeno” 94 is a forgery of Cigoi, see Brunetti 1966, no. 446) are of the usual
type with a profile bust closely resembling that of Verina on the obverse and a Victory supporting
a long cross on the reverse. The obverse legend is AEL ZENONIS AVC. The Ratto specimen
just cited is without officina numeral, but there are also ones with A (e.g., in the British Museum:
PCR II1.1641), and ones from other officinae may yet be found. Fewer than half a dozen speci-
mens are known; there were none in the Scandinavian finds. The nummus has a profile bust
and the same legend as the solidus, and on the reverse a monogram resembling that of Zeno
but with an S on the transverse stroke of the N in either a wreath or dotted border (LRBC 2287;
MIRB 14; 627). There were a number in the Volo hoard from Greece (Adelson and Kustas 1962,
nos. 1043-57), and two in the hoard of 1937 from Ersekujvar in Hungary from early in Zeno’s
reign (Kerényi 1946, nos. 57—8). The coin illustrated by Tolstoi (“Zeno” 96), with an R V beneath
the monogram, is a forgery of Cigoi (Brunetti 1966, no. 447). Minting in her name at Ravenna
is out of the question.
180
ZENO
With Leo II, 9 February—November 474
First Sole Reign, November 474-9 January 475
Restored (Second Reign) August 476-9 April 491
Eastern Colleague:
Leo (first named Basiliscus), caesar autumn 476—477
Western Colleagues:
Julius Nepos (19 June 474—9 May 480)
Romulus Augustulus, usurper (October 475—September 476)
Odovacar magister militum and rex (from September 476)
The early career of Zeno has already been described, and this section can limit itself to the
coinage of his “second” reign of fifteen years. The emperor's Isaurian origins, the religious
compromise of the Henoticon which he attempted to enforce, and the cruelty displayed in his
suppression of revolts combined to give him a much worse reputation with contemporary his-
torians than he probably deserved. He could not have risen to the position he did if he had been
physically a coward, as John Lydus alleges, and while accusations of excessive suspicion and
greed may have had more justification, they can be excused by the circumstances in which he
found himself. The revolt of Basiliscus was only the first of a long succession of military and
political crises: an attempted coup d’état by his brother-in-law Marcian, a son of the Western
emperor Anthemius who had settled in Constantinople and married Leo I’s younger daughter
Leontia; the more prolonged revolt of his fellow Isaurian Illus in alliance with Verina; endless
troubles with Gothic troops in the Balkans and their successive leaders, Theoderic Strabo and
Theoderic the Ostrogoth. All these he survived, and much credit remains due to a ruler who
saved the Eastern provinces from the danger of a Germanic occupation such as had overtaken
the West (cf. Bury 1923, 1.400-—2). But he was hated by many circles in the capital, and when he
died of an attack of epilepsy on 9 April 491, it was rumored that he subsequently recovered
consciousness and was deliberately buried alive.
I. Eastern Coinage
Almost the whole of Zeno’s coinage from 476 onward was struck in his name alone. A
possible exception consists of that of Ariadne, but this more probably belongs to his first reign.
There are also the coins on which he is associated with a Caesar Leo. These are solidi (T 5;
MIRB 6) and tremisses (T 8-9; MIRB 13; 628); with the inscription D N ZENO ET LEO NOV
CAES, the NOV standing for nobilissimus. Their attribution has been a problem to scholars for
the past two centuries, for such an association does not match any combination known from the
written sources. Three possibilities have been put forward:
(a) that the names are those of Zeno and Leo II as caesars during the reign of Leo I, that
is, in the autumn of 473, though no source describes Zeno as caesar in association with his son
at this period.
(b) that the emperor is Zeno and “Leo” is the son of Armatus, who was promoted to this
181
182 ZENO
rank as part of the bargain by which Armatus changed sides and brought about the restoration
of Zeno. Armatus’ son, according to the written sources, was named Basiliscus, but such a name
would scarcely have commended itself to Zeno, and the boy might well have had it changed to
one associated with the dynasty.
(c) that the Zeno and Leo of the coins are the two unnamed younger sons of Basiliscus
whose existence is known from the written sources, though it is nowhere suggested that they
were ever created caesars.
The first of these theses, argued by Ulrich-Bansa (1942), must be definitely rejected, since
(a) the diadem tails of the imperial bust sometimes curl upward, and this modification in the
design first appears on coins of Basiliscus and Marcus, and (b) one tremissis obverse die is a
recut one of Basiliscus and Marcus, since traces of several of the letters of their names appear
under those of ZENO ET LEO, so the coins must be later than the autumn of 475.
The third thesis was argued by Kent (1959a). It has in its favor the mixture of upward and
downward curls to the diadem ends, but against it are (1) the constitutional impropriety of coins
being struck in the names of two caesars without any reference to the reigning emperor, (2) the
fact that while a number of sources refer to Marcus’ caesarship, there is not one that suggests
that the office was ever held by his brothers, (3) the unlikelihood of a die of Basiliscus and
Marcus being recut while it was still useful, and (4) the form of the legend, for the singular D N
should refer to a single augustus and CAES to a single caesar.
The second possibility was originally suggested by the French numismatist Baron Marchant
early in the nineteenth century (Marchant 1851, 128-32; his paper was first published in 1822)
and accepted by a number of subsequent scholars. The only serious argument against it is the
mixture of diadem ends, but it has been pointed out already (above, p. 179) that the change in
design was not one that there is any reason to suppose was completed by the end of the
Basiliscus-Marcus coinage and it could well have carried over into the next coinage at the start
of Zeno’s reign. It seems therefore that Marchant’s hypothesis is the most plausible one, and it
has been adopted in the arrangement of the coins here. It is also the view taken by Hahn in
MIRB (pp. 50-1). The coins, on this hypothesis, would be dated 476/7, for Armatus profited
only briefly by his betrayal of Basiliscus. Zeno had him murdered sometime in 477, and his son,
who had been created caesar at Nicaea in late 476, was deprived of his title and ordained a priest
(sources listed in PLRE II, s.v. Armatus).
The solidi and tremisses of Zeno and the caesar Leo are all of Constantinople. The remain-
ing Eastern coins of Zeno’s sole reign are mainly of Constantinople, but there are gold and silver
coins of Thessalonica, some AE from Cyzicus, and some AV and AE of Antioch, together with
a substantial coinage in Zeno’s name from Italy.
Constantinople
No multiples are known. Zeno’s solidi (T 11-24; MIRB 7; 629-43) are of the normal Cross-
and-Victory type and very varied in style, so that their detailed study may at some future date
allow their approximate dating. Zeno’s name is so short that the die-sinkers continued to use the
formula PERP instead of PP as they had done under Leo I. An officina numeral is invariably
present. CONOB is sometimes inscribed as CONOR (e.g., 643), the last letter being clearly an R
and not a B. The traditional frontal ornament on the emperor's helmet is often lacking (e.g.,
632), but its absence is associated with a variety of officina numerals and does not seem to char-
acterize coins of any particular period of the reign. The occasional substitution of a cross for the
usual trefoil ornament is a purely Western phenomenon.
EASTERN COINAGE 183
Until recently no consular or vota coin was known, but in 1990 there came on the market
(Bank Leu sale 50, 25.iv.1990, lot 402) an anomalous solidus having on the obverse a consular
bust, lightly bearded, facing left and holding mappa and cross, and on the reverse a consular
figure, nimbate, seated facing and likewise holding mappa and cross. The legends are
DNZENOP ERPAVC and VOTXX MVLTXXV. Although those who saw and handled the coin
had no doubts of its authenticity, there are so many anomalies in legend and design—Zeno’s
reign was too short for VOT XX, the throne has vertical sides and no seat, the V in XXV has
the form Y—that one is bound to regard it as, at best, a quite irregular issue. There is no
possibility of the die for the reverse being one carried over from the reign of Theodosius II.
The semisses (T 25—6; MIJRB 11-12; 644-5) and tremisses (T 29-31, 49-50; M/JRB 14-16;
646-54) are of the usual Victory types, but the semisses sometimes have a cross instead of a
Christogram in the field. They are often of careless workmanship, the X’s inscribed on the shield
of the semissis being imperfectly rendered and the legends of the tremisses sometimes corrupt
(651—4). The tremisses normally have the star in the right field, but it is occasionally in the left
one (e.g., T 49; 653-4), and a specimen at Vienna is without a star at all.
Silver coins are rare. No miliarenses are known. There are two classes of siliqua of very
variable weights (1 g/1.3 g), both having an inscription in a wreath. The earlier in date (655;
Grierson 1948; M/JRB 20; unicum now at DO) has SRI/REI/RVL, a blundering of SAL/REI/
PVB, with CONOS followed by a star in the exergue. The form CONOS was also to be fre-
quently used in the future. The second type of siliqua (T 33—4; MJRB 21; 656) has a blundered
form of VOT/V/MVLT in three lines in a wreath, the elements in it being often reversed, as they
are on 656 (TOV/VIMY/MTI).
The AE 2 of Zeno and the nummi (AE 4) with standing figures are probably of Zeno’s first
reign (above, p. 174). The much commoner nummi of his second reign are those with monc-
grams, usually in either a wreath or a beaded circle (T 36-7; MIRB 26, 29-33; 657-63). The
monograms are basically of two kinds. One has as its simplest form one also used as a hallmark
on silver plate, with ft incorporating the Latin letters ZENO very clearly. On coins the Z ts.
sometimes detached and placed in the upper field instead of at the top of the left vertical stroke
(657, with middle bar of the E omitted). To it are often added an eta and an omega, the latter
normally simplified as a simple curve below the left hand vertical (658), so that the monogram
as a whole could be read as either Greek ZHNON or Latin ZENO. The second group of mon-
ograms has as its basis a Z and an N superimposed on each other, forming a square with a single
diagonal line, the O being placed at the top of the left-hand vertical, and the E usually having
the form of a square C, the central horizontal stroke being omitted. Often strokes are omitted
or displaced, so that a number of varieties exist (LRBC 2279-82; Adelson and Kustas 1962,
tables on pp. 16, 89), but the differences are of no significance. Most of the coins are without
mint-mark and their attribution to Constantinople is conventional, although it was there that
most were probably struck. There are some, however, with CVZ for Cyzicus (MIRB 29-30;
Adelson and Kustas 1962, nos. 921, 926, 959, 994), THS for Thessalonica (MJRB 33; Adelson
and Kustas 1962, nos. 990-2), and ANT for Antioch (MIRB 32; Brenot 1968). The KOC of
some of Leo I’s and Basiliscus’ nummi recurs (Adelson and Kustas 1962, nos. 896, 899; MIRB
26) but is best regarded as a blunder, not as Cios on the Propontis. Adelson and Kustas, in their
metrological study of the nearly 1,000 coins of Zeno in the Volo hoard (Adelson and Kustas,
1962, 17-39), argue that the weight of the nummus was reduced in his reign to 0.84 g or 41%
keratia (384 to the lb.), the lowest point reached by the denomination prior to the monetary
reform of Anastasius.
184 ZENO
Thessalonica
Zeno’s solidi of Thessalonica have CONOB as mint-mark, the THSOB used under Marcian,
Leo I, and Basiliscus being demoted under Zeno to serve the silver and the OB presumably
standing for 72 instead of obryzum. The solidi form two classes.
The first of these, not admitted as Thessalonican by Metcalf (1988), is identified by having
T, followed by an officina numeral, after AVCC on the reverse (T 38; MIRB 8; 664-5). The
officina numerals run from A to I, and since it is highly unlikely that Thessalonica would have
had ten officinae, one must assume that the dies were supplied by Constantinople, which is
anyhow indicated by their style. A coin with TI (T 38) was attributed by Tolstoi to Ticinum
(Pavia), a view developed by Lederer (1934) and Lacam (I1.863-—80), both of whom knew a much
larger series of officina numerals but Lacam interpreting the T as Theoderic’s initial rather than
that of the mint. Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 355 and pl. O.r) preferred Thessalonica, an attribution
upheld in the only full study of the series (Lallemand 1964b), for the coins, which are closely
die-linked, are purely Constantinopolitan in style, and although CONOB was sometimes used.
in Italy, the normal Western formula was COMOB. Hahn (in M/RB, p. 51) regards them as a
special Constantinopolitan issue made for some purpose that escapes us.
The second series of solidi has no officina letter, and is distinguished from coins of Constan-
tinople by having two stars instead of one in the reverse field (T 42; MIRB 9; 666-8). The style
diverges somewhat from that of Constantinople, and so presumably the mint was now making
its own dies. Varieties in detail are noted by Metcalf (1988, 98, nos. 228-36). The attribution to
Thessalonica is based partly on the fact that two Thessalonican issues of Leo I (555, 559) also
had two stars in the field, partly on the recurrence of the same feature on solidi on Anastasius
I, Justin I, and the early years of Justinian, and partly by the presence of prominent stars on
Thessalonican coppers of the early years of Justinian.
Thessalonica was also the mint of very rare miliarenses of ca. 4.5 g having as reverse type a
standing emperor, looking left and holding spear and shield, with THSOB in the exergue. The
only recorded specimens are one illustrated by Sabatier (S 1.139, no. 9, pl. v1.26 = T 32), a
much damaged one in the British Museum (PCR III.1652: 3.84 g), one in Paris (MJRB 22.1),
and one in the Whittemore collection (669). No ordinary siliquae are known for the mint, but
there was a nummus with THS (M/RB 33), not known to the authors of LRBC, in the Volo hoard
(nos. 991-2).
II. Western Mints
Finally, there is the large and in part highly complex coinage struck in Zeno’s name in the
West during the fifteen years between his recovery of Constantinople in August 476 and his
death in April 491.
This period almost exactly coincides with Odovacar’s “reign” in Italy. It was in September
476 that Odovacar deposed the usurper Romulus Augustulus. The legitimate Western emperor
was Julius Nepos, who had taken refuge in Dalmatia a year earlier. Odovacar was persuaded to
recognize him, but Nepos continued to reside in Dalmatia and so far as we know never revisited
Italy. He was murdered by a disaffected retainer in May 480, and a year later Odovacar took
steps to avenge him, killing his murderer Ovida and reannexing Dalmatia to Italy. Odovacar
governed Italy with much success during the 480s, ruling mainly in the north and according a
high degree of autonomy to the Senate in Rome and its neighborhood. But Zeno resented the
degree of independence exercised by Odovacar, and in 489 rid himself of a troublemaker in the
WESTERN COINAGE 185
Balkans by dispatching Theoderic the Ostrogoth to Italy to dispose of Odovacar and rule “until
he should come himself.” Theoderic defeated Odovacar and made himself master of north Italy
and Rome in 489/90 but was still blockading Odovacar in Ravenna at the time of Zeno’s death.
The pattern of Western coinage in Zeno’s name seems fairly clear. Julius Nepos would pre-
sumably have minted gold in his name at Salona over the years 476—80. Odovacar would have
struck gold and silver in his name at Milan and Ravenna over the years 476—89, and Odovacar
nominally but the Senate actually have minted gold, silver, and bronze in his name at Rome
during the same years. Coins struck before and after 480 should in theory be distinguishable
from each other, since those minted prior to this year should have parallel issues in the name of
Nepos, but in actual fact such features as are of real significance are not easy to identify, and the
differentiation will at best be partial and open to discussion. Odovacar’s issues in Zeno’s name
are not likely to have continued after 489, in Milan because he had lost control of the mint, in
Ravenna because he at some time ceased to recognize Zeno, showing his independence by be-
stowing on his own son Thela the title of caesar and minting silver and bronze in his own name.
Theoderic would presumably have been able to mint gold and silver on Zeno’s behalf at Milan
and nominally at Rome, but here again the effective authority would be the Senate.
The Western gold coinage in Zeno’s name of the fifteen years 476/91 was dealt with by
Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 314-44), and some issues of solidi were examined by Lallemand in the
context of the Vedrin hoard (Lallemand 1965c), but by far the fullest discussion and collection
of material is in the second volume of Lacam (1983). The way in which this is divided up, with
separate groups of coins attributed to the period of Nepos (476—80), to that of Odovacar alone
(480-9), and to Theoderic’s campaigns in 489-91, makes references to it difficult and any par-
ticular coin hard to locate, while a number of Lacam’s attributions are open to question. The
solidi in Zeno’s name with a T preceding the officina numeral, which Lallemand attributed to
Thessalonica (above, pp. 57, 68), are given (863-80, pls. 203-7) to Pavia (Ticinum), which we
know was Theoderic’s headquarters in the winter of 489/90, though their Eastern origin seems
evident. Another somewhat inchoate group is attributed to Bologna (880-98, pls. 208-12), since
the mint-mark in the field of one specimen looks more like B A instead of the M D one would
anticipate from the style of the coin, but one cannot create a new mint on the basis of one
doubtful reading (cf. above, p. 56). It is also highly unlikely that a mint at Salona would have
struck coins with the mint-marks of Milan or Rome (702-9, pls. 177—8), though since there is
some find evidence justifying the attribution of tremisses to Salona (Demo 1988), it is likely that
some of the solidi without specific mint-marks were struck there as well.
Since virtually all the silver and bronze coins in Zeno’s name bear mint-marks, and conse-
quently present fewer problems, it will be convenient to deal with them first.
Italian Silver Coins
The silver coins struck in Zeno’s name are all half-siliquae weighing ca. 1 g and are of four
types. The first has a city Tyche standing left on a prow with the letters R V or M D in the field.
The second has as reverse type an eagle with unfurled wings and sometimes with a cross at the
top of the coin between the wing tips. The third has an eagle in profile to the left, with its head
turned backward and a cross above it. The fourth type has a Chi-Rho in a wreath, with CM
beneath. They may be summarized as follows:
Type 1
(a) Ravenna, R V in field. T 60; UB pl. O.e, f; PCR III.1646.
(b) Milan, M D in field. T 58-9; UB 336-41; pl. xv.186—90.
186 ZENO
This type continued that introduced at Ravenna by Julius Nepos in 474 and carried on by
Romulus Augustulus for himself (below, p. 270) and for Basiliscus (above, p. 178). It was sub-
sequently borrowed by Milan, despite the inappropriateness of a Tyche on a prow for an inland
mint. Since the Ravenna but not the Milan coinage is paralleled by one in the name of Nepos,
the M D series should probably be dated after 480, though the coins are so rare that specimens
of Nepos may yet come to light.
Type 2
(a) Ravenna. No cross above eagle. T —; UB —; illustrations in Horsky sale (Hess Nachf.
30.iv.1917), 4674, and Baranowsky sale 22.vi.1931, lots 100—1 (Trivulzio coll.).
(b) Milan. Cross above eagle. T 61; UB 336-41, pl. xv.191—2; PCR III.1650.
This type revives that used at Rome in the name of Leo II (above, p. 172) but apparently
quickly dropped, as it is not known for Nepos, Romulus, or Basiliscus. Mint attributions are
made on the strength of the resemblances between the busts on the obverse to those of Type 1
with R V or M D in the field. There are no parallel issues in the name of Nepos.
Type 3
Rome. T 62-3; PCR III.1647 = BMC Vand 44, no. 8, pl. 5.6.
The PCR follows Wroth (in BMC Vand) in attributing this coin to Ravenna on stylistic
grounds, an attribution regarded by Tolstoi as possible but not certain. The style of the bust,
however, is not certainly Ravennate, and since an eagle in a similar posture forms the reverse
type of autonomous folles of Rome in the time of Theoderic, it seems reasonable to give it to
the same mint. There is no Nepos equivalent.
Type 4
Rome. T —; King 1987b, 209/15A (illus.). King attributes the coin to Milan, but CM (=
Caput Mundt) reappears under the Ostrogoths on some silver coins of Rome (BMC Vand 58/80-1
note 3).
None of the types carried on after 491; there are none in the name of Anastasius. The first
evidently dates from the start of the reign. Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 341) suggests that the second
might have been introduced to mark Zeno’s second consulship in 479. The type would certainly
be appropriate for this, as the consular scepter (scipio) was topped with an eagle of this design.
But Zeno’s assumption of a consulship would not have been of great interest in the West, and it
seems better to leave the date of the revival of the type an open one. Presumably Type 3 is
simply a variety of Type 2, the Rome mint not wishing to revive the exact type used in 474.
Italian Bronze Coins
If Rome differed from the other two Italian mints in the striking of silver, it did so much
more in its striking of bronze, for it anticipated Constantinople in the introduction of a heavy
copper multiple of 40 nummi which came to be called a follis. The coins are all of the same type,
having on the obverse a diademed bust of Zeno which is evidently intended as a characterized
portrait and on the reverse a Victory advancing to the right and holding a trophy and wreath,
with S C in the field and -XL-: in the exergue. The reverse legend is IMVICTA ROMA. There
are two forms of obverse legend:
(a) With large bust: IMP ZENO SENPER AVG. T 68 = BMC Vand 101, no. 5, pl. 12.23 =
PCR II1.1644.
(b) With smaller bust, and reading outward from bottom r. IMP ZENO FELICISSIMO SEN
AVG, with the head cut off sharply at the neck and -IIII- beneath. T 66-7; BMC Vand 100-1,
nos. 1—4, pl. 12.20-—22; MEC I, no. 92; 689.
WESTERN COINAGE 187
The two varieties, both weighing ca. 16 g, are remarkable in their combination of innovation
with tradition. They are innovative in that they show the mint of Rome antedating by a decade
or more the great coinage reform of Anastasius in 498 which introduced a follis of 40 nummi
and placed on it a mark of value, though in the Roman case this is less conspicuous than on the
coins of Constantinople and the Roman follis is unaccompanied by fractions. They are tradi-
tional in their ostentatious revival of features that marked the aes coinage of the Principate or
the Tetrarchy: a characterized portrait of the emperor, S C in the field, a reverse type copied
from a well-known one much used under the Flavians; on one of them a legend reading out-
wardly, something that had not figured on the coins for many centuries; and on the same coins
SEN(PER) and FELICISSIMVS, terms which had not been used in coin legends since the time
of Diocletian and Maximian (DN DIOCLETIANO [or MAXIMIANO] FELICISSIMO SEN
AVG).
The issue must have been very small, for coins of each variety seem to have been struck by
only a single pair of dies, though since many of the surviving specimens are corroded and
several have been tooled, it is difficult to be sure of this. It is at first sight surprising that Anas-
tasius’ far-reaching reform should have been anticipated by coins from what was by then a quite
minor mint far from the center of power, but it had a precedent from two centuries earlier. The
great currency reform of Diocletian had been preceded by a few years by Carausius’ introduc-
tion of a “denarius” of good silver in Britain, and, as Reece has pointed out (1988, 275), Car-
ausius was strongly permeated by Roman traditions, his titles and coin types and his issues of
coin for propaganda purposes all looking back to the Roman past. The same is true of the
coinage issued at Rome, effectively by the Roman Senate, in the name of Zeno. The coins reflect
the traditionalism of governing circles in the ancient capital, and the mint archives would have
contained all the documentation required to give substance to their archaizing tastes.
The date of the coins is disputed. Kent (1959a), followed by PCR (III.1644) and Hendy
(1985, 488-90), attribute them to the last years of Zeno’s reign (489-91), after Theoderic’s vic-
tories in the north in the course of 490. But a case can be made (MEC 1.31-2) in favor of 477,
the year after his restoration at Constantinople. The solution only in part depends on the mean-
ing to be attached to the numeral IIII beneath the bust on the coins of Class (b). If they indicate
the fourth officina of the Roman mint, as do the similar numerals on later Senatorial issues, and
as Kent and other scholars have assumed, they do not help over the date, and attributing them
to 490/1 is based on the assumption that they are likely to have been close to the reform of
Anastasius and the fact that the unusual counterclockwise legend also occurs on some silver
coins struck by Theoderic in the name of Anastasius at Rome and Milan. The objection to
treating the -IIII- as officina numerals is that they are in the wrong place on the coin. Officina
numerals are customarily on the reverse, not on the obverse as these are, and numerals that
effectively form part of the imperial inscription had in earlier times referred to the number of
times an emperor had held the tribunician power or occupied some other office. In a late fifth-
century context, one would expect them to indicate a regnal year, like the ANNO IIII or ANNO
V on some Vandal silver coins of Carthage, and since Zeno’s regnal year would have been reck-
oned from his accession in February 474, this would effectively date the coins to 477. Such a
date would fit in well with Odovacar’s instructions to the Roman Senate in the autumn of 476 to
send the imperial ornaments to Zeno and invite him to take over the government of the West,
while Zeno’s reply, that the lawful sovereign of the West was Julius Nepos, would explain why
this anomalous coinage came so quickly to an end.
188 ZENO
Western Solidi
A high proportion of the Italian solidi are provided with the mint-mark M D or R V and
present no problem of mint identification unless one follows Lacam in assigning some of them
to Salona. No solidi are known with R M, but there are ones with R (or variant) following the
reverse inscription that are certainly of Rome. There are likewise none with A R, but some with
A in the same position are possibly of this mint. There are, finally, some with no mint-marks at
all whose attributions are highly uncertain. The number of such coins at Dumbarton Oaks is too
small to justify a full discussion of them here, and only blanket references to the different vari-
eties can be attempted.
Milan
UB 317-25, pls. x1v—xv. 156-62; Lacam 647-68, pls. 161—5; 809-16, pl. 198; 905-11, pls.
215-16. Some coins have only M D in the reverse field (674—8), but there are many variants:
two pellets after CCC and a pellet after COMOB or on either side of COMOB, a star in the field
in the right field above D or in the left field below M, and in the latter case sometimes with a @
(679-80) or (rarely) an A between the lower part of the cross and the right leg of Victory. Paralle!
issues of Nepos date some of these before 480 (tables in UB, pp. 320-1). The star in the field is
presumably an attempt to combine an “Eastern” feature with the traditional Western M D, such
coins being the Zeno counterpart of those in Nepos’ name which have a prominent star at the
end of the legend (943-5). Lacam (908) believes that the © by the Victory’s leg is the initial of
Theoderic and dates such coins to 489/91, but this leaves unexplained the A in the same position
on another variety of the same mint.
Ravenna
Ravenna was more eccentric than Milan in its use of mint-marks on the solidi. The material
is collected in Lacam 620-6, pls. 152-3; 770-1, pl. 190; and 788-809, pls. 195-197D. The
essential groups are as follows:
(a) With RV in the field and two pellets after CCC. This variety (PCR III.1645) evidently
starts the series, for it has RV in the customary position and the two pellets after the reverse
legend as at Milan, though there are none beside COMOB. It perhaps belongs to Zeno’s first
reign.
(b) With a star in the field, CONOB instead of COMOB, and a small RV inserted between
CONOB and the end of the legend (UB, p. 335, pl. O.p). The bust is of a different style, and
the reverse design is assimilated to that of Constantinople, with CONOB and star in the field,
but the mint authorities evidently insisted that the mint should be identified, hence the incon-
gruously placed RV. The issue was not represented in the Vedrin hoard, but Lallemand brought
together material on it in her discussion of this (Lallemand 1965c, 134-5).
(c) With a star in r. field, CONOB, and N (sometimes reversed), initially with a bar across
the top, apparently a breakdown of the monogram of RV following the CCC (UB 335, pl. O.q).
There was one specimen in the Vedrin hoard (no. 57), and Lallemand once again collected
material on the group in her discussion of it (Lallemand 1965c, 135-6, pls. 5.7, 12.7a—12a).
For neither of these is there any parallel issue in the name of Nepos, which dates them to
the years 480—489 (UB, 329-35). There are also coins without specific mint-mark, but having a
star in the right field and two pellets after the reverse legend, which can be assigned to Ravenna
on stylistic grounds (670; cf. Lacam 620, pl. 152).
WESTERN COINAGE 189
Rome
The fullest collection of material is in Lacam (605-14, pls. 147A—149; 777-89, pls. 191-4;
and 926-37, pls. 222—5), the last attributed to the region of Rome rather than to the city mint.
Assimilation to Eastern practices here takes the form of a star in the field and sometimes the use
of CONOB, though COMOB remains more usual, while the mint is indicated by an R (or var-
iant) at the end of the reverse legend. On one die an R is also substituted for the B in CONOB
(685). But, just as at Ravenna RV was replaced by a monogram which became N, so at Rome the
R (686) is replaced by a I, initially accompanied by a pellet (687) but eventually without this.
This seems an improbable deformation of an R, but the style of the coins leaves no doubt about
the mint identification. There were several specimens in the Vedrin hoard, and the attribution
and dating—post-480, for there are no similar coins of Nepos—are discussed by Ulrich-Bansa
(1949, 329-35) and Lallemand (1965c, 131-4).
Arles
The exact date at which Arles passed out of imperial control and was annexed by the Visi-
gothic king Euric is uncertain. It is generally supposed to be 476, a year after Euric’s acquisition
of Auvergne, but all we really know is that it was subsequent to this event and before 484, the
year of Euric’s death. Since we are expressly told that Zeno gave his assent, it was probably after
480, since if it had been before this year, Julius Nepos and not Zeno would have been involved
in the transaction. In any event it was after Zeno’s accession, and coins are likely to have been
minted at Arles in his name.
No solidi of Zeno exist with A R in the field comparable to those of Nepos (948). But there
are a number with reverse legends ending with an A, and Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 335) and Lalle-
mand (1965c, 143, no. 55) have assumed, and Lacam (673-8, pls. 168—9) has argued at some
length, that some at least of these might have been minted at Arles. The coins are so diverse that
it can hardly be the case for all, more especially since they include different styles of bust, variant
forms of the obverse legend (PERP AVC or PERP F AVOQ), and reverses with either CONOB or
COMOB, and the star, if present at all, in either the left or the right field. The attribution to
Arles of the one here (690) is made on grounds of style.
Western Tremisses
These are all of the traditional type, a cross on a wreath with COMOB beneath. Mint attri-
butions depend, as earlier, on style, the wreath at Rome being narrow and compact, that at Milan
large and straggly, and that of Ravenna somewhere between the two but closer to the Milan
pattern. The particular features of the busts on the half-siliquae in Zeno’s name with mint-marks
provide a welcome confirmation of the classification. Ulrich-Bansa illustrates only the Milanese
series (pl. xv.179—84; cf. p. 339), but Lacam brings together abundant material for all mints
(692-701, pls. 124-6; 709-13, pl. 179; 818-26, pls. 99A, B; 937-42, pl. 226). The attribution
of some tremisses to Salona in the years 475-80 is argued by Demo (1988). The attribution of
the three coins in this collection to Ravenna (671), Milan (681), and Rome (688) is evident and
requires no discussion.
LEONTIUS
Pretender in the East 484-8
Leontius was a professional soldier who in 484 was sent by Zeno to Isauria to suppress the
revolt of Illus, the Isaurian general who had played such a prominent role in the tangled polit-
ical events of the mid-470s. But Leontius, well educated and noted for his good looks and dip-
lomatic manners, was persuaded by Illus to turn against his master and attempt to seize the
throne himself. The ex-empress Verina, whom Illus had held in custody, crowned him on 19
July at Tarsus, sending a circular to the provinces justifying her action, and a few days later the
rebels occupied Antioch. But in September they were completely defeated by Zeno’s troops and
took refuge at the fortress of Papirios in Isauria. There they sustained a desultory blockade over
the next four years, Zeno being occupied with other matters, till in 488 the fortress was captured.
by treachery and Leontius and Illus duly executed (Brooks 1893; PLRE s.v. Illus 1, Leon-
tius 17).
Leontius’ only coins are extremely rare solidi (T 1; MZJRB 1) and nummi minted at Antioch,
the solidi having the mint-mark ANTIOB, not always completely legible, instead of CONOB.
They are of very crude work, the design of the Victory having occasioned the die-sinker great
difficulty and the D N LEONTIO PERPS AVG of better specimens sometimes having the N
omitted, as on the Bibliothéque Nationale specimen (LEOTIO). The authenticity of the group
is fortunately guaranteed by the finding of a specimen at Saltholm in Bornholm in 1882 (Fager-
lie 1967, no. 629), though as usual Cigoi has added a forgery (Brunetti 1966, no. 449) based on
an engraving on the Paris specimen. It has been suggested with much probability (Fagerlie 1967,
165) that the coin found in Bornholm reached Scandinavia by way of Italy, for Zeno had used
Ostrogothic troops to put down the revolt.
The only nummi so far attributed in print to Leontius (Walker 1967) are two in the Ash-
molean Museum at Oxford which have blundered and meaningless obverse inscriptions but
“Leo” monograms on which there is a clear T on the right-hand side, so that they have all the
letters of Leontius’ name and a letter that would have no place in Leo’s. They are from a hoard
found in Upper Egypt and were classed by Milne as barbarous, but the monograms are clear
and, despite the absence of any mint-mark and the distance from the find spot to Antioch, the
attribution to Leontius seems an acceptable one. Kent and Hahn (in MIJRB, p. 49), however,
believe the monograms are simply ones of Leo I. Other coins with a legible LEONTIVS on the
obverse and a T on the left-hand side of the monogram (illus. in MJRB, pl.15, F.17) are certainly
false.
190
B. WESTERN EMPERORS
HONORIUS
17 January 395 — 27 August 423
(nominally from 23 January 393)
Colleagues Rivals
Theodosius I (to 17 January 395)
Arcadius (to 1 May 408)
Eudoxia (9 January 400 —6 October
404)
Theodosius II (from 10 January 402) Marcus (Britain) 406 (no coins known)
Gratian (Britain) 406 (no coins known)
Constantine III (Britain and Gaul) 407—
September 411
Constans (Gaul) 409-11
Maximus (Spain) 409-11
Priscus Attalus (Italy) 409—June 410
Jovinus (Gaul) 411-13
Sebastian (Gaul) 412-13
Pulcheria (from 4 July 414) Priscus Attalus (again, Gaul) 415—April /
May 416
Constantius III (8 February—2 September Maximus (again, Spain) ca. 420(?); d. 422
421)
Galla Placidia (from ?8 February 421)
Honorius was consul thirteen times: i 386; ii 394; iii 396; iv 398; v 402; vi 404; vii 407; viii
409; ix 412; x 415; xi-xii 417—18; xiii 422. It was believed in the East that Honorius assumed his
ninth consulship in 411, an error that gave rise to much confusion (see Burgess 1986).
Honorius, the younger son of Theodosius I and Flaccilla, was born on 9 September 384
and created augustus on 23 January 393. (The date 10 January given by some modern authori-
ties is an error.) The death of Valentinian II in May 392 and the usurpation of Eugenius left the
way open for a Western expansion of Theodosius’ power, with Honorius envisaged as the future
occupant of the “vacant” throne. After the defeat of Eugenius (6 September 394), the boy joined
his father at Milan and never again visited the Eastern half of the Empire. He succeeded Theo-
dosius when the latter died on 17 January 395, but since he was only ten years old, all power
was in the hands of Theodosius’ trusted adviser Stilicho, whom he had married to his niece
Serena (see Table 11 on p. 96). Honorius was to marry in turn Stilicho and Serena’s daughters
Maria (in 398; died 407 or early 408) and Thermantia (in 408; repudiated a few months later;
died 415), but no children were born to either marriage.
Honorius was a feeble and pleasure-loving nonentity. It was rumored that when apprized
of Alaric’s sack of Rome he was dismayed by what he at first assumed to be the death of 2 cock
named Roma in his much-valued collection of roosters (Procopius, BV 1.2.26). He has, not sur-
192
COINAGE OF HONORIUS 193
prisingly, failed to attract the attention of a biographer, and the best account of his reign is
Seeck’s year-by-year survey in RE VIII (1913), 2277-91. For its first thirteen years, he was dom-
inated by Stilicho, who pursued a long-standing dispute with Arcadius over the possession of
Illyricum. Despite his undoubted abilities, Stilicho failed to prevent the invasion of Italy by the
Visigoths under Alaric, a raid of miscellaneous peoples under Radagaisus in 405 that devastated
north Italy, and the invasion and occupation of much of Gaul by the Vandals, Burgundians, and
Suevi in 407. He was murdered as the result of a palace intrigue on 22 August 408, but Alaric
and the Visigoths remained in Italy and sacked Rome in August 410. Between 407 and 413 Gaul
was virtually divided up between invading Germans and a succession of usurpers, while in 407
Britain effectively ceased to be part of the Empire. Even Africa was the scene of revolts under
Gildo the Moor in 397-8 and Stilicho’s murderer, Count Heraclian, in 413.
Some degree of imperial control in Gaul was restored after 413 by an able general, Con-
stantius, who in 417 was grudgingly allowed to marry the emperor's younger half-sister, Galla
Placidia, and still more grudgingly created augustus in February 421. This seemed to guarantee
the succession, since Honorius was childless. But Constantius III died unexpectedly in Septem-
ber 421, and in 422 Honorius quarreled with Placidia, who took refuge in Constantinople with
her two children, Honoria and the future emperor Valentinian III. When Honorius died of
dropsy on 15 August 423 after a singularly inglorious reign, there seemed to be little future for
the Theodosian dynasty in the West.
The coinage of Honorius has a number of features in common with that of the East—the
abandonment of the largest bronze denomination (AE 2) in 395 and that of AE 3 in 411 or 413,
the decline of the silver coinage, the emergence of the tremissis as a major denomination—but
the contrasts are even more evident. Honorius retained the traditional profile bust on the solidus
in preference to the three-quarter facing armored bust introduced in the East in 395, and con-
tinued for the same denomination throughout his reign the Emperor-spurning-captive type of
Theodosius I’s last coinage. He was less interested than Arcadius and Theodosius II in vota
anniversaries but much more addicted to large medallic denominations in both gold and silver.
Perhaps the main event of the reign, from the numismatic point of view, was the opening of the
new mint of Ravenna. Late in 402 the court had moved there from the traditional north Italian
capital of Milan, since the easy access of Ravenna to the sea offered both military and commercial
advantages and its swampy approaches made it almost impregnable to attack by land. The date
of the move is uncertain, but the earliest document dated from Ravenna is of 6 December 402
(CTh VII.13,15) and the existence of VOT/X/MVLI/XX coins suggests that the mint was in
operation by January 403, though it is possible that the coins are later (404). The style of the
earliest solidi suggests that the personnel was brought partly from Aquileia, which seems to have
then been closed, and partly from Milan, though the latter retained some of its staff and was
still minting down to at least 404. The mint of Ravenna was in any case limited to gold and silver,
as that of Milan had been, with copper coins in future struck almost exclusively at Rome instead
of at Aquileia.
The coinage in Honorius’ name from Gallic mints was minimal. This was in marked contrast
to the situation during the previous half-century, when Trier had minted gold and silver on a
huge scale and even a little bronze, Lyon had minted in all three metals, and Arles had done
likewise, though on a more restricted scale. One would not in any case have expected an exten-
sive coinage after 407, for the Germanic invasion led to the removal of the seat of the Praetorian
Prefecture of the Gauls from Trier to Arles (above, p. 69) and the establishment between 407
and 413 of the usurping regimes of Constantine III and Jovinus, with Constantine minting after
194 HONORIUS
407 at Trier, Lyon, and Arles and Jovinus at the same mints between 411 and 413. But the fall
in the volume of minting in Gaul went back to the very beginning of Honorius’ reign, being
perhaps the consequence of a reduction in the size of the military establishment, for the needs
of which coins were primarily struck. There was initially a meager output of bronze from two
of the traditional mints, or perhaps from all three, and a little silver from Lyon and Trier.
Subsequently, between the two usurpations in 411 and after the fall of Jovinus in 413, there were
brief issues in Honorius’ name. But that was all.
The special issues of the reign were few and, with one exception, are today very rare. Con-
sular solidi were struck in 396 and 398, and then apparently not again till 422. Vota issues were
mainly confined to semisses and heavy miliarenses, but there were vota solidi for the emperor's
tricennalia in 422 and a considerable issue of siliquae with a VOT/V/MVLT/X legend that must
have continued over several years. Vota celebrations usually began well in advance or might be
changed for other reasons: the emperor's first quinquennalia was celebrated in 397—its expenses
are alluded to in a document (CTh V1.4.30) of 31 December 396—and his second one in 402,
while his vicennalia are said by Marcellinus to have been arranged for 411 so as to coincide with
the first decennalia of Theodosius II, though Burgess (1986) believes this to be an error and that
the celebrations really took place in 412. More important than any of these was the start of his
sixth consulship and an imperial triumph celebrated at Rome in 404 and known to us mainly
from Claudian’s description in his poem on Honorius’ sixth consulship (lines 523 ff), though the
successive victories of Stilicho over Alaric at Pollenzo (6 April 402) and Verona (autumn 403)
which formed its pretext had been anything but decisive, and Honorius in any case deserved no
credit for them. Only the six-siliqua multiple struck for the occasion at Rome, Milan, and Ra-
venna bears an inscription, TRIVMFATOR GENT(ium) BARB(arorum), clearly alluding to it,
but a number of other exceptional issues struck at the same mints, and in the names of Arcadius
and Theodosius II as well as Honorius, can be attributed with varying degrees of certainty to it
also. Whether the Milanese and Ravennate issues were minted simultaneously with those of
Rome, or later in the year when the emperor may have returned to Ravenna by way of Milan,
we do not know. The next document of his dated from Ravenna is of 4 February 405.
Honorius’ coins present no problems of mint identification apart from those arising out of
some anomalous occurrences of SM in the field. These letters normally stand for Sacra Moneta,
but for their appearance in anomalous contexts various alternative explanations have been put
forward. The presence of SM in the field of COMOB in the exergue on solidi of the 390s has
been discussed (above, pp. 119-120), and it was argued that the interpretation Sacra Moneta is
correct and the coins in question should be assigned to Constantinople. SM without any further
mint-mark also appears on some rare AE 3 of Honorius with the legend Gloria Romanorum and
two forms of Standing-Emperor reverse. These are doubtfully assigned in LRBC to Siscia, inter-
preting SM as Sisciana Moneta, a phrase used in the Notitia Dignitatum, although Siscia had been
closed in ca. 387. But the mint-mark of Siscia had always incorporated the syllable SIS and an
ofhicina had always been indicated on its AE, while on these coins there is neither SIS nor officina
numeral.
A consideration of the circumstances in which the coins were issued suggests a different
explanation. The AE 3 of the issue with Emperor-and-Two-Captives reverse exists for three
mints: Rome (LRBC 827, with mint-mark SMR and officina numeral), Aquileia (LRBC 1114,
with mint-mark AQ and officina numeral), and an unspecified mint with simply SM (LRBC
1582). Since the coins were minted in the name of Honorius only and not in that of Arcadius,
and are absent from hoards of the 390s and the first decade of the fifth century, they cannot go
CHRONOLOGY OF THE COINAGE 195
back to the opening of the reign and should postdate the death of Arcadius in 408. The partic-
ipation in the issue of Aquileia would imply that this mint was reopened specially for the pur-
pose, for it had otherwise not minted since 404, possibly not since 402. The most likely date for
such a reopening is 409/10, when Rome, the only mint in Italy then striking bronze, was occu-
pied by Priscus Attalus and it would be natural for Honorius’ officials to fall back on Aquileia,
which had previously been active in minting in that metal. The corresponding coins from Rome
would have been struck, though probably not for long, after Honorius’ recovery of the city in
410. The most likely explanation of SM would seem to be that the moneyers at Ravenna, not
normally a mint for bronze, were instructed to assist in the issue, perhaps with the object of
providing a type model for the others, and employed for the purpose a neutral SM as mint-
mark instead of their customary RV.
The same explanation would cover the SM coins in the other Gloria Romanorum group of
AE 3, that showing the emperor standing with a labarum and resting his right hand on a shield
(LRBC 1583). This type is shared not with Rome and Aquileia but with Lyon (LRBC 399, with
LVG) and Arles (LRBC 573-4, with CON sometimes preceded by an officina numeral). These
coins cannot be as early as 409/10, when the two Gallic mints were in the hands of Constantine
III. In 411 they were briefly recovered by Honorius, and more permanently in 413. They could
resume minting in his name, and once again Ravenna was called in to provide a model for their
work. This it did with a second group of SM coins.
Apart from this minor problem, however, the coins struck in Honorius’ name, whether by
himself or by others, lack most of the complications of those of Arcadius. They are nonetheless
difficult to describe clearly. There were, initially, those struck in his name by Theodosius I in the
East between January 393 and January 395 and in the West between October 394 and the same
closing date. Second, there were the coins struck by him in the West between 395 and 423,
initially almost exclusively at Milan and Rome and subsequently at Ravenna and Rome but in-
cluding also a few issues from Aquileia, Arles, Lyon, and Trier. Third, there were the coins
struck in his name in Eastern mints by his Eastern colleagues, by Arcadius to 408 and subse-
quently, but only very occasionally, by Theodosius II. The coinages struck during his reign also
include the issues of various usurpers, the coins Honorius struck in the names of Arcadius and
Theodosius II, and the coins he struck near the end of his reign in the names of Constantius
III and Galla Placidia. These, however, are all best dealt with under the names of the rulers in
question. The others are discussed here in the order used above, much of the material being set
out in tables which rely extensively on the tables and arguments in Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 177,
table A, and 197-201, tables B—D).
The chronology of the coins, apart from the few special issues that bear dates, depends very
largely on our knowledge of the periods of activity of the various mints. In Italy, Milan struck
only gold and silver, and effectively only during the years 394—402, though it did participate in
the “triumph” coinage of 404. Ravenna came into existence as a mint only in 402, when it effec-
tively took over from Milan, striking in principle only gold and silver as this had done, but
exceptionally, it has been argued above, providing models with the mint-mark SM for other
mints in 409/10 and in 411 or 413. Aquileia minted mainly AE in the early years of the reign,
being replaced after 402 by Rome, but it was reopened for AE in 409/10 when Rome was mint-
ing for Priscus Attalus, and rare solidi were also minted there early in the reign. Minting in the
Gallic mints, as has been seen, was only sporadic. Honorius’ name on his coins is, as one would
expect, normally spelled with the initial aspirate, but this sound had largely disappeared from
spoken Latin by the fifth century (Juret 1938, 66; cf. Courtois et al. 1952, 70), and on one bronze
196 HONORIUS
issue from Rome he appears without it (D NONORIVS P F AVG; below, p. 208). It is surprising
to find what is generally regarded as a provincialism on coins of Rome itself, but the mint per-
sonnel had at the time been expanded by intake from elsewhere.
I. Coins of 393-5
The coins struck in Honorius’ name between his nomination as augustus on 23 January 393
and his father’s death exactly two years later (17 January 395) came mainly from Eastern mints,
solidi from Constantinople and Thessalonica and three denominations of bronze from Constan-
tinople and six other mints.
The problem of whether the solidi with SM in the field and COMOB or COMOB: in the
exergue should be assigned to Sirmium or Constantinople has been discussed in the context of
Arcadius’ fifth coinage, with the preference given to Constantinople. The coins have a profile
bust with pearl or rosette diadem and on the reverse the type of emperor spurning captive
introduced in the fall of 392, with the reverse legend ending CCC and breaking initially
VICTOR - IA and subsequently VICTORI — A. There are also some anomalous coins, with CC
instead of CCC and sometimes with Honorius’ name misspelled with two Is (HONORI -IVS).
The coins with CC and this misspelling are mules with reverses of the previous issue, recognizing
Theodosius and Arcadius only, and the mistake over Honorius’ name presumably resulted from
the carelessness of a die-sinker accustomed to inscribing Arcadius’ name with IVS to the right
side of the bust (ARCAD — IVS) or possibly from the actual recutting of such dies. These can be
confidently assigned to 393. It is possible that those with Honorius’ name spelled correctly, which
were unknown to Pearce, are of the same period. But they may belong to 395, having been
struck after the news of Theodosius’ death had reached Constantinople, hence the reduction in
the number of G’s, but before the new obverse with a three-quarter facing bust was introduced.
This is the view taken for the specimen here (744), though with some hesitation. The RIC ref-
erences for the SM coins, apart from this one, are set out in Table 34.
TABLE 34
Honorius: Solidi with SM/COMOB
With VICTOR — IA, AAVCC and HONORI - IVS. Pearl
diadem
SM/COMOB 161/12d.1
SM/COMOB: 161/12d.2
With HONORI —- VS and VICTOR — IA AVCCC
SM/COMOB (a) Pearl diadem
SM/COMOB (b) Rosette diadem
Same, but VICTORI — A AVCCC
(a) Pearl diadem
(b) Rosette diadem
Same, but VICTORI — A AVCC. Pearl diadem
161/14d
161/14e
162/15d
162/15e
The solidi of Thessalonica resemble those of Constantinople in having COMOB in the
exergue but are without SM in the field and have no officina numeral (RIC IX.188/64e-g; 701).
Some have GG (with blundered CONCOR — IA) and HONORI — IVS, as at Constantinople and
COINAGE OF 393-5 197
TABLE 35
Honorius: Eastern AE, 393—5
AE 2 AE 3 AE 4
Gloria Romanorum Gloria Romanorum Salus Reipublicae
Emp. st. w. lab. and globe Emp. on horseback Victory dragging captive
Heraclea 199/27c
Constantinople | 236/88c 236/89c 236/90c 698-700
Cyzicus 247/28c 247/29c 247/30c
Nicomedia 263/46c 263/47c 263/48c
Antioch 294/68e,f 295/69e 295/70c
Alexandria 304/21d 304/22c 304/23c
no doubt for the same reason. Pearce believed that the issue ended in the spring of 393 with the
removal of the mint personnel to Sirmium, but this seems to be a fantasy, and since Thessalonica
often operated without the emperor being personally in residence, it is better to date the issue
393—5, with the GG coins and those with Honorius’ name misspelled as 393.
The Eastern bronze coins of these two years are of the three denominations and types of
Arcadius’ fifth coinage, with Gloria Romanorum AE 2 having the emperor standing with labarum
and globe, Gloria Romanorum AE 3 with the emperor on horseback, and Salus Reipublicae AE 4
with a Victory dragging a captive and a Christogram in the left field. The obverse legend is
unbroken, as befitted Honorius’ junior status, but the designs of the bust make little attempt to
depict him as a child. (An AE 2 of Constantinople with broken obverse legend, RIC 1X.236/88d
= LRBC 2204, is best dated after Theodosius’ death.) RIC and LRBC references are set out in
Table 35. The types have been discussed in the context of Arcadius’ coinage.
Western coins of 393—5, struck before Theodosius I’s death, are necessarily much rarer than
Eastern ones, for Eugenius gave only grudging recognition to his new colleague, and the coin-
ages introduced by Theodosius I in the last months of 394 cannot for the most part be distin-
guished from those continued by Honorius after his father’s death.
No coins are known to have been minted by Eugenius in Honorius’ name at Trier, or at
Milan or Rome after his acquisition of Italy, but there are rare AE 4 of Lyon and Arles having a
VICTORIA AVGGG inscription and a Victory advancing left with wreath and palm. Those of
Lyon have been carefully studied by Bastien (1985b; 1987a, 67—70). All known specimens are
from the first officina (LVGP) and have either nothing in the field (C — ; RIC 1X.53/47b; LRBC
396; Bastien 1987a, no. 233), or an S in the field (C— ; RIC —; LRBC —; Bastien no. 237), or a
V in the field (C—; RIC IX.53/47 note; LRBC 398; Bastien no. 239). The first two, for which
there are parallel issues for Eugenius, must have been struck before October 394. The third,
which is known for Honorius and Arcadius only and on which Honorius’ name is broken, must
be dated to 395, before the mint was closed. As for Arles, there were AE 4 with PCON mint-
mark of the same type that both pre- and postdated Theodosius’ death. The earliest (LRBC
198 HONORIUS
570), with unbroken obverse inscriptions and three G’s on the reverse, exist also in the names of
Theodosius I and Arcadius, and while these were being struck by Eugenius in the names of his
“colleagues,” the ones with Honorius’ name must date from the winter of 394/5. They were
followed by coins having the obverse legends broken (LRBC 572), though with the number cf
G's apparently unchanged.
Apart from these, the only Western coins that are customarily attributed to the short period
between the battle of the Frigidus and Theodosius’ death in January 395 are two ceremonial!
coins of Milan, an Adventus sesquisolidus and a half-siliqua, the first on the assumption that it
commemorates the boy’s formal reception in the city in December as augustus and future sov-
ereign of the West, and the second being a denomination frequently thrown to the people on
such occasions. Neither can in reality be dated with any certainty, and it seems better to leave
them for discussion with other post-395 issues below.
II. Western Gold Coins of Honorius, 394—423
The gold coins struck in the West are set out in Tables 36 and 37. Prior to 402 the coins
were mainly of Milan, while from then onward they were mainly of Ravenna, but a few were
also minted at Aquileia and Rome. The only ones struck in Gaul were of Arles.
Solidi. Six types were struck in the reign. All but two are explicitly ceremonial in character
and struck on a very small scale.
(a) The normal type has an Emperor-spurning-captive reverse with the legend VICTORIA
AVGGG. The coin was initially struck at Milan, with MD in the field (712-14), from 394 to 402.
It is not really possible to distinguish coins struck in the winter of 394/5 by Theodosius I in the
name of Honorius from those struck subsequently by Honorius himself; GG was not substituted
for GGG, and although Ulrich-Bansa considered that some have an appreciably more infantile
bust, and there are indeed slight differences in portraiture from one die to another, the changes
over an eight-year period of issue are too small to allow us to date individual coins.
The type was continued at Ravenna, with RV in the field, from 402 onward and, since it was
carried on under John, probably to the end of the reign. Three G's were again appropriate in
the inscription between 402 and 408, but, as in 395, no reduction to two was made when one of
the three co-emperors died in 408. The inscription is thus once again no help in dating individ-
ual coins, but there were some stylistic changes, so that early and late coins of Ravenna can be
dated approximately by their resemblance to ones struck in the name of Arcadius at the start of
the period and others of Constantius III and John toward its close. A rare variant—there were
only three in the Comiso hoard as against 253 of the normal type—has a pellet after COMOB.
The solidi of this type of Rome, with RM in the field (723-5), are relatively common but
cannot be precisely dated. Honorius visited the city at least four times during his reign, being
there for some six months in 404, nearly eighteen months in 407-8, and shorter periods in 4] 1
or 412 (celebration of his vicennalia), 414, and 416 (triumph over Maximus). Many of the coins
probably belong to 407/8.
The solidi of Aquileia, with AQ in the field (C—; 722), were also struck in the name of
Arcadius. They must therefore predate 408. It has been suggested (Panvini 1978a, 295) that
they were minted in the fall of 401, as Honorius might have then gone to Aquileia to organize
its defenses against Alaric, to whom the city fell in November. But there is no evidence that he
in fact did so, and a more likely date is 404, on the assumption that Aquileia was briefly consid-
ered as a capital between the abandonment of Milan and the definitive settlement of the court
GOLD COINAGE 199
TABLE 36
Honorius: Western Solidi, 394—423
Inscription and Type Date | Cohen | Ca, Other References
A. Diademed profile bust right
VICTORIA AVGG Emp.
spurning captive
(a) Milan, MD/COMOB RIC 84/35(c)
(b) Aquileia, AQ/COMOB UB pl. E.q
(c) Rome, RM/COMOB PCR II1.1498 |
(d) Ravenna, RV/COMOB
(e) Ravenna, RV/COMOB-: 3 in Comiso hoard
VICTORIA AVGG Emp. UB pl. vi11.80
spurning captive, holding
standard w. VOT/X and
shield w. MVL/XX
B. Consular bust left
VOTA PVBLICA Two UB pl. 1x.85
consuls seated. MD/COMOB
GLORIA ROMANORVM UB pl. 1x.87
Consul seated. MD/COMOB
C. Helmeted bust right
VICTORIA AVGGG Emp.
w. foot on lion.
(a) Ravenna, RV/COB
(b) Ravenna, RV/COMOB
D. Helmeted bust facing
Roma and Cpolis holding
shield w. VOT/XXX/MVLT/
XXXX. RV/COMOB
E. Consular bust facing
VOT/XXX/MVLT/XXXX PCR III.1514
Consul seated. RV/'COMOB
at Ravenna (Kent 1978, note to no. 730). Poetry is not always easy to interpret, but Claudian
certainly suggests that the authorities at Rome were hoping to attract Honorius back to their city
on a permanent basis, as if the question of his future residence were still an open one.
Two specimens are known of the corresponding solidi of Arles, one in the British Museum
(PCR II1.1496; acq. at Christie’s, 16.vi.1959, lot 28), the other in the Bibliothéque Nationale
(Lafaurie 1965). There is also a counterpart of Arcadius in the latter collection (above, pp. 128—
9). Lafaurie doubts if the coins of the two emperors were minted at the same time, since they
differ somewhat in style, and he is inclined to date the Arcadian one to ca. 407, after the move
to Arles of the Praetorian Prefecture of the Gauls. It is at least clear that the coins of both
emperors must predate 408 and that they must have minted on a very small scale, for there were
none in the Dortmund, Menzelen, or Chécy hoards. It is possible that solidi of Trer remain to
be discovered, for three copper exagia with a young, narrow bust of the emperor have been
found in the city itself (Alféldi 1970), though no solidi are actually known. Nor are there any of
Lyon.
200 HONORIUS
TABLE 37
Honorius: Western Gold Multiples and Fractions
Gn = Gnecchi 1912 (plate refs.); UB = Ulrich-Bansa 1949 (plate refs.)
Denominations, Legend, and Type | Date | Cohen | Cat. Other References
4"/2 Solidus multiple
GLORIA ROMANORVM Roma
enthroned facing
(a) Milan, MD/COMOB
(b) Ravenna, RV/COMOB
(c) Rome, RM/COMOB
Sesquisolidus
ADVENTVS DN AVG Emp. on
horseback I.
(a) Milan, MD/COMOB
Semisses
VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM
Victory inscribing vota on shield
supported by winged Genius
VOT/V/MVLT/X
(a) Milan, MD/COMOB 397
VOT/X/MVLT/XV
(a) Ravenna/RV/COMOB 403
VOT/X/MVLT/XX
(a) Milan, MD/COMOB 404(?)
(b) Rome, RM/COMOB 404(?)
(c) Ravenna, RV/COMOB 404(?)
| VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX 412
(a) Ravenna, RV/COMOB
(b) Same, but shield on column
VOT/XXX/MVLT/XXXX Shield
on column. RV/COMOB
Tremisses
VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM
Victory advancing r., holding
wreath and globus cruciger, COM
in ex.
(a) Milan, MD/COM 394-402
(b) Rome, RM/COM 394—408(?)
(c) Ravenna, RV/COM 402-8(?)
Same, but COMOB 4082-23
(a) Rome, RM/COMOB
(b) Ravenna, RV/COMOB
UB 1x.89, F—G.89
Gn 20.1; UB
FG.a—b, H.e
Gn 19/11; UB
H.d
UB 1x.86
UB v1.77
UB H.b
UB vu1.82
UB H.a
UB H.b
Ponton
d’Amécourt
791
Ponton
d’Amécourt
792
UB v.55, vu.63
GOLD COINAGE 201
(b) Solidi with a youthful consular bust on the obverse and two seated figures on the reverse,
the inscription being VOTA PVBLICA and MD being present in the field (C 61; UB pl. 1x.85;
unicum in Paris ex Montagu 974, ex de Quelen 2267). Ulrich-Bansa (p. 197) attributes it to 394,
but it is rather 396, when Honorius and Arcadius were joint consuls. For this and for the next
two coins, no Arcadius counterparts are known, though they were presumably struck.
(c) Solidi with an older consular bust on the obverse and a seated consular figure on the
reverse, the legend being VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM and MD being present in the field (C
15; UB pl. 1x.87). Ulrich-Bansa dates it, no doubt correctly, to 398, when Honorius was consul
in company not with his brother but with Eutychianus, praetorian prefect of the Oriens.
(d) Solidi with Emperor-spurning-captive type and MD in field but with inscription ending
GG instead of GGG and a striking variation in design, for the standard bears the inscription
VOT/X and the emperor holds in his left hand a shield with MVL/XX (C—; UB pl. v111.84;
unicum at Vienna). The decennalia can only be those of Honorius, and the coin is dated by
Ulrich-Bansa (pp. 198, 199) to 403 or 404, but the change from GGG to GG makes 402 more
likely. At the beginning of that year, there were only two emperors, Arcadius and Honorius,
while in 403 and 404 there were three.
(e) Solidi with a helmeted bust as obverse type and on the reverse a standing figure of
Honorius holding a long cross topped by a rho and trampling on a recumbent lion, with a Manus
Dei holding a crown above his head (C 43; 742). The legend is VICTORIA AVGGG as before,
but the coin is anomalous in that while it has RV in the field, it often has COB instead of
COMOB in the exergue. The type has had attributed to it a religious significance (Demougeot
1986), for in the Bible the lion frequently symbolizes the power of evil and in patristic literature
it is often, like the serpent, a synonym for heresy. But the helmeted bust on the obverse, when
taken in conjunction with the reverse type, implies some military achievement, and a lion was
the traditional symbol for Africa. The date is uncertain. MaclIsaac (1975, 327 note 24) suggested
that it is the earliest issue of the mint of Ravenna, with the type commemorating the suppression
of the revolt of Gildo, but this had taken place in 398, and the mint was not open till at least
four years later. The coin can also scarcely predate 408, for while it was also struck in the name
of Theodosius II (above p. 149), none in the name of Arcadius are known. There seems no
reason for either ca. 410, as suggested in the caption to PCR II1.1510, or 421, as assumed by
Demougeot. Most likely it celebrated the suppression of the revolt of Heraclian in 413, for
although it was in Italy that Heraclian’s army and fleet were destroyed, he had been count of
Africa since 408 and it was in Carthage that he was killed (7 March). The coin is somewhat rare,
but although not a ceremonial issue in the same sense as the three solidus types just described,
it was clearly an exceptional one. There were three specimens in the Certosa di Pavia hoard
(Patroni 1911, 5) and one in the Rome (Tiber) hoard of 1880 (Balbi 1987), both of Honorius’
own time, but it is absent from the main hoards of the middle decades of the century, apart
from that of Trabke Mati (1 specimen), as it is from the early hoards of Honorius’ own reign
(Dortmund, Menzelen, Chécy).
(f) Solidi with obverse showing a facing bust of Honorius in consular robes, holding a raised
mappa and eagle-topped scepter, and reverse showing his seated figure, similarly attired, with
the legend VOT XXX MVLT XXXxX (C 69; enlarged illus. in Kent 1978, no. 733). It is known
only from a unique specimen in the British Museum (ex Evans 1922, lot 245, ex Montagu 975).
The coin dates from 422 when Honorius was consul for the thirteenth time, but this was also
the year of his tricennalia, and the coin will have been struck in January for distribution at the
inauguration ceremonies.
202 HONORIUS
(g) Solidi with an obverse showing the armed and facing bust of Honorius—the portraiture
is unusually grotesque—holding a spear and a shield inscribed with a Chi-Rho. The reverse
type consists of the seated figures of Roma and Constantinopolis holding between them a shield
inscribed with VOT/XXX/MVLI/XXXX (C 73; 743). There are sometimes one or more pellets
beside the Chi-Rho on the shield. This coin also dates from 422 but celebrates the accession
anniversary only, and since some twenty specimens are known from a number of different dies,
its minting presumably continued throughout the year.
Semisses. These were still vota issues confined to anniversaries, and are all very rare. They
are of a single type, a Victory inscribing a vota legend on a shield which is initially held by a
winged Genius and subsequently on a pillar with the Genius steadying it. The legend is VIC-
TORIA AVGVSTORVM, with COMOB in the exergue and a mint-signature, MD, RM, or RV,
in the field. Successive issues are set out in Table 37.
The earliest semissis, with VOT/V/MVLI/X, is of Milan, and is known only from a unicum
in the British Museum. Pearce (RIC IX.84/36 and illus. on pl. v1.11) believed the vota anniversary
to be that of Arcadius, but a coin in Honorius’ name from Milan cannot antedate 394 and a vota
issue so long after the actual anniversary is unlikely. It is therefore better attributed to Honorius’
quinquennalia in 397. Semisses celebrating the decennalia have two varieties of legend, one with
VOT/X/MVLI/XV known only for Ravenna and the other with VOT/X/MVLT/XX struck at
Milan, Rome, and Ravenna. The first cannot be of 402, for Ravenna was not a mint in January
402 when the decennalian celebrations are likely to have begun, and 403 seems most likely. ‘The
existence of the second for the three Italian mints suggests that they belong to 404. Later sem-
isses are of Ravenna only, and apparently struck only at decennalian intervals.
Tremisses. These exist for the three mints of Milan (715), Rome (727), and Ravenna (737-9),
with MD, RM, or RV in the field, and are all of the same type, a Victory advancing right holding
a wreath and globus cruciger, with a VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM legend and COM or COMOB
in the exergue. The change from COM to COMOB was made ca. 409, for COM appears on all
tremisses struck in the name of Arcadius—it naturally appears on all of Milan—while Roman
tremisses of Priscus Attalus already have COMOB. Possibly it marks a conscious break with the
past made when minting in Arcadius’ name was discontinued in 408.
Multiples. The only published gold multiples of Honorius are 41% solidus medallions, of
which several specimens are known, and a unique sesquisolidus (1 solidus).
The 4'% solidus medallions, 32 mm in diameter and weighing ca. 20 g, have as reverse type
an enthroned figure of Roma with a GLORIA ROMANORVM legend. They are shown by the
overlap of Roman, Milanese, and Ravennate specimens to have been struck on the occasion of
Honorius’ triumph at Rome in 404 (cf. Ulrich-Bansa 1949, 212-13), despite the fact that the
mounted specimens from the Velp hoard were found in company with similarly mounted me-
dallions of Placidia that must date from 421 or 422 (below, p. 230). Such objects were treasured
by their owners, and medallions of different dates are often found together. They exist for
Milan, Ravenna, and Rome. Two of the three known specimens of Ravenna, one in the Dutch
national collection at Leiden and the other at Paris, are elaborately mounted pieces from the
Velp hoard of 1715 (Chabouillet 1883; Kerkwijk 1910; Toynbee 1944, 62 note 35; illus. also in
UB pls. F, G.a, b, and an unmounted specimen pl. H.e).
The sesquisolidus is known only in a single specimen in the British Museum and formerly
in the duc de Blacas collection. The type and inscription, showing the emperor on horseback
with the inscription ADVENTVS D(omini) N(ostri) AVG(usti), were normal for the denomina-
tion and do not necessarily refer to a specific event. The date is uncertain. Laffranchi attributed
SILVER COINAGE 203
it to the arrival of Honorius at Milan from the East in December 394, when the boy emperor
accompanied Theodosius in procession from the basilica to the palace, but Ulrich-Bansa (1949,
202-3) rightly objected that the bust is an older one—this point is also made by Pearce (RIC
IX.83 note)—and that Claudian, in describing the procession, had emphasized the subordinate
role of Honorius in it. Ulrich-Bansa would assign the coin to 396, when Arcadius and Honorius
jointly assumed the consulate, but the coin is not a consular one. It is possible that it formed
part of the triumphal coinage of 404, which was in part struck at Milan.
III. Western Silver Coinage 394—423
Honorius’ silver coinage is basically one of siliquae, of which there is a surprising variety of
types and legends and which are for the most part undated, in contrast to those of Theodosius
II. With one exception, in fact, dating is reserved for heavy miliarenses. All the silver coins
belong to the early years of the reign, none being attributable with any certainty to the period
after 413. The coinages are set out, with the essential references, in Table 38.
TABLE 38
Honorius: Western AR
Gn = Gnecchi 1912 (plate refs.); MS = Morrisson and Schwartz 1982 (plate refs.);
PCR = Principal Coins of the Romans (British Museum); UB = Ulrich-Bansa 1949 (plate refs.)
Denomination, Legend, and Type | Date | Cohen | Cat. Other References
Six-siliqua multiple (ca. 13 g)
TRIVMFATOR GENT BARB
Emp. standing, captive to I.
(a) Rome, RMPS Gn 37/4; UB H.g
(b) Ravenna, RVPS Gn 37/5; UB H.h
(c) Milan, MDPS UB 1x.88
Heavy Miliarense (ca. 5.5 g)
VOT/V/MVLTYX in wreath
(a) Milan, MDPS UB vu.78; PCR
11.1504
VOT/X/MVLT/XX in wreath
(a) Milan, MDPS UB v111.84
(b) Rome, RMPS UB H.c
(c) Ravenna, RVPS Gn 111, suppl. pl.
14
VOT/XV/MVLT/XX in wreath
(a) Rome, RMPS Gn 37/3
Light miliarense (ca. 4.5 g)
VIRTVS EXERCITVM Emp. 397(?) UB vu.65
standing w. spear and shield.
Milan, MDPS
Same, but EXERCITVS, and 404
larger bust
(a) Milan, MDPS UB vu.64
(b) Rome, RMPS PCR III.1499
(c) Ravenna, RVPS Trau sale, lot 4632
204 HONORIUS
TABLE 38
Honorius: Western AR (cont.)
Denomination, Legend, and Type © Date | Cohen | Cat. | Other References
Siliqua
VIRTVS ROMANORVM Roma
seated on cuirass
(a) Milan, MDPS
(b) Rome, RMPS
UB vul.67
Apostolo Zeno sale
11.2389
(c) Aquileia, AQPS
VOT/V/MVLTYX in wreath 397-402
(a) Milan, MDPS UB vim1.79; RIC
82/26
VOT/X/MVLT/XV in wreath, 402 UB vi1.76
MDPS
VRBS ROMA Rome seated I. on 394/5 O’Neil 1933b, pl. |
cuirass, TRPS 16.50 :
(Terling hoard) )
VRBS ROMA Roma seated |. on
square throne
(a) Ravenna, RVPS PCR II1.1512; MS
28/S.1-6
GLORIA ROMANORVM Roma
seated facing on high-backed
throne looking I.
(a) Ravenna, RVPS
VICTORIA AVGGG As last
(a) Ravenna, RVPS Pridik 1930, pl.
1v.34
VICTORIA AVGG(G?) Roma
seated |. on cuirass
(a) Trier, TRMS Gilles 1983
Half-siliqua
VICTORIA AVGG(G) Victory }
advancing I.
(a) MD (with GG) 395/402 UB v1.69, 71; MS
28/H.1—4
(b) MD (with GGG) 404 UB vi1.73, 74; MS
28/H.5;
PCR If1.1502
(c) RM (with GGG) 404 MS 28/H.6—7
(d) RV (with GG) 404/23 MS 28/H.8
Six-siliqua multiples (ca. 13 g).
These handsome coins, of the same module (33 mm) as the 41% solidus gold multiples, show
the emperor standing to the right, holding a standard and globe and looking backward at a
captive crouching at his feet. The legend, TRIVMFATOR GENT BARB, shows it to have made
part of the 404 triumphal coinage. Specimens are known of Rome, Milan, and Ravenna. It was
SILVER COINAGE 205
minted also in the name of Arcadius (only Rome known).
Heavy miliarenses (theoretically ca. 5.5 g but, because of the reduction in the weight of the
siliqua, often much lighter, sometimes falling below 4 g).
This denomination was reserved under Honorius for quinquennial celebrations, the reverse
type being a vota legend in the wreath with the mint-signature beneath. The earliest issue, with
VOT/V/MVLT/X, was struck in 397 and only at Milan; a Ravenna counterpart with RVPS re-
corded by Cohen (C 62) and Gnecchi (1912, I.83/8) is an error, the coin in question, as Gnecchi’s
illustration shows, being a VOT/X/MVLI/XX one. The coins of the decennalia (VOT/X/MVLT/
XX) were struck at Milan (MDPS), Rome (RMPS), and Ravenna (RVPS), probably in 404. Those
of the third quinquennalia (407) are known only for Rome (RMPS), but ones of Ravenna may
come to light in the future. None are known for Honorius’ vicennalia or tricennalia, despite the
minting of solidi on both occasions.
Light miliarenses (theoretically 4.5 g)
This denomination is known only in a single type, with the emperor standing holding spear
and shield and the legend VIRTVS EXERCITVM or EXERCITVS. The former is known only
for Milan, and the obverse has a bust extending to the middle of the circle of inscriptions. Its
dating is uncertain (397?). Coins with EXERCITVS have a larger bust and are known for Milan,
Rome, and Ravenna. They presumably formed part of the “triumphal” coinage of 404.
Siliquae
Seven types of siliqua were struck after 395, but only two, with vota inscriptions, are formally
dated and only the two issues struck between 394 and 402 are common. The others, all post-
402, are rare, and it is clear that soon after 400 the striking of silver coins came virtually to an
end. The coinages, apart from that of Lyon which was a survival from the reign of Eugenius,
are listed below. The mint-marks are the same as those of the higher denominations, MDPS,
RMPS, and RVPS, with TRMS for the exceptional 411 issue of Trier and LVGP for the earlier
issue of Lyon. The coinages, apart from the last which has been dealt with already, were as
follows:
(a) With VIRTVS ROMANORVM inscription and Roma seated on a cuirass. Ulrich-Bansa
treats this as the normal coinage of the whole period 394-402, but the commonness of the
subsequent Vota coinage shows that the latter is more than a ceremonial issue and must have
followed the Virtus Romanorum one in 397. It is essentially one of Milan (MDPS), but specimens
also exist for Rome (RMPS) and Aquileia (AQPS). They are naturally not known for Ravenna,
since this mint was not opened till 402. There are small variants in the design of the seated
Roma in the Milan series which are analyzed by Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 187—9), but they are prob-
ably without chronological significance. The weight of well-preserved specimens is usually ca.
1.7 g, but those from British hoards have almost invariably been cut down (see above, pp. 37—
9), as are two of the three specimens here (716-18).
(b) With VOT/V/MVLTYX in a wreath, a type known only for Milan (719-21). It is common
and was presumably struck from 397 to 402. Specimens in British hoards are commonly cut
down, like those of the preceding issue. Pearce without good reason attributed some of these
coins to the period 388—93 (RIC 82/26).
(c) With VOT/X/MVLT/XV in a wreath. This issue of 402 is known only for Milan, and
specimens are very rare.
(d) With VRBS ROMA and Roma seated left on a cuirass holding a Victory on globe and a
reversed spear, with TRPS in the exergue. This is known from a unique coin in the Terling
hoard (O’Neil 1933a, 168, no. 322; illus. pl. xv1.50). Its discovery came as a surprise, for the
206 HONORIUS
mint of Trier was generally believed to have been closed ca. 393, or at least at the death of
Eugenius in September 394, and in a supplementary note to the Terling hoard Pearce (1933a,
180) dismissed it as having presumably been struck “during one of the sporadic reopenings of
the Treveri mint by the usurpers of the early fifth century.” But a portrait unlike that of the
normal coins of Honorius is to be expected in a coin struck in the winter of 394/5 after the news
of Eugenius’ defeat and death had reached Trier but before any instructions or models for a
coinage had reached the mint. Siliquae of the early fifth-century usurpers, together with the
unique specimen in the name of Honorius probably struck in 411, have in any case TRMS and
not TRPS as mint-mark. The coins gave rise later to imitations, for Pearce (1933a, 180) cites a
barbarous copy with VRBZ and a pellet before TRPS.
(e) With VRBS ROMA and Roma seated left on a square throne with back. This type, with
mint-mark RVPS, is known only for Ravenna. The specimen illustrated in PCR (III.1512) is
there dated ca. 410. One can scarcely be so precise, but the high weight (1.67 g) points to a date
nearer 410 then 420. Its rarity is surprising in view of the fact that it served as a model for the
quite common early pseudo-imperial siliquae of the Vandals (Morrisson and Schwartz 1982).
(f) With GLORIA ROMANORVM and Roma seated facing on a high-backed throne (740—
1). This type, with mint-mark RVPS, is known only for Ravenna (C 12; 740). Some specimens
(C 13; 741) are of smaller module and much thinner and lighter (ca. 0.7 g), which has led some
scholars to treat them as half-siliquae, but half-siliquae are always different in type, and it seems
more likely that they are simply later in date and their small size no more than the consequence
of a weight reduction. Kent (1974) and King (1988, 197-9) regard them as Germanic (Visigothic)
“imitations” on stylistic grounds. There is a still lighter variety (0.46 g) with a VICTORI —
AAVGGG legend at Leningrad (C 42, incorrectly described [Sabatier coll.] = Pridik 1930, 81,
no. 34).
(g) With VICTORIA AVGG(G?) and Roma seated left on a curule chair and TRMS in the
exergue. This isolated siliqua of Trier is known only from a single specimen found during build-
ing operations in Trier in 1982 (Gilles 1983). The weight is 1.95 g. It closely resembles the Trier
siliquae struck by Constantine III in 407-11 and Jovinus in 411-13, which also have TRMS as
mint-signature, and while it could conceivably have been struck in Honorius’ name after 413, it
more probably belongs to 411, when Honorius was again briefly recognized as ruler of Gaul and
it would have been natural for the Trier moneyers to have continued the type to which they had
become accustomed under Constantine.
Half-Siliqua (ca. 1.0 g)
This exceptional denomination, the minting of which was limited to special occasions, has
for type a Victory advancing left with wreath and palm and for legend VICTORIA AVGG(G),
the mint-signature being MD, RM, or RV in the exergue (C 38). The Milan group with GGG
(RIC 1X.84, nos. 38b with VICTOR — IA, 39b with VICTORI — A; illus. in UB pl. vi1.73—4)
was ascribed by Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 193-4), following Laffranchi, and by RIC to December 394,
when Honorius arrived in the city, though Pearce surprisingly ignored the same dating possibil-
ity for the Rome series. (Pearce did give to Rome at this date a silver coin with a Spes Romanorum
legend and an officina numeral of which several specimens exist [RIC IX.134/66], but the legend
and the presence of an officina numeral are appropriate to AE 4, not to silver, and Ulrich-Bansa
[cited RIC IX.113] rightly dismissed the coins as forgeries.) It seems more likely that they both
belong to 404, with the slightly commoner GG ones of Milan struck on some occasion between
395 and 402, perhaps in 397. The Ravenna ones with GG, which exist only for Honorius, were
presumably struck at some uncertain date after 408, but no precise occasion can be identified.
BRONZE COINAGE 207
TABLE 39
Honorius: Western AE, 395-423
The numerals in the columns refer to LRBC, with those of specimens here in heavy type. For Western issues of
393-5, see above, pp. 197—8. Table 31 gives the corresponding issues of Arcadius.
VICTOR — IAAVGGG
573-4
Victory adv. 1., V/LVGP or
xCON (cf. C 39)
In company with the Ravennate siliquae of the Urbs Roma type, they provided models for the
earliest Vandal silver coinage (Morrisson and Schwartz 1982).
VICTOR —- IAAVGG
Same type, TR
SALVS REI — PVB LICAE
Victory dragging captive L.,
AQx or Rx (C 32)
VRBS RO — MA FELIX
Roma standing, OFF x/
SMROM(C 72)
SALVS REI — PVBLICAE
Type as before, Rx, but obv.
legend more correct
GLORIA RO —- MANORVM
Emp. and 2 captives, (C 24)
SM, AQx
Same leg. and type, SM, SMRx
Same leg. Emp. standing,
SM, LVG, CON or x CON
(C 21)
VICTOR —- IAAVGG
Victory adv. |., x/RM
(cf. C 39)
Same, Christogram in r. field
Same, no off. initial or
Christogram, obv. inscr.
unbroken
395-402(?)
402-8
408-9
409
410
411 (or 413)
410-23
IV. Western Bronze Coinage
The bulk of Honorius’ Italian and Gallic bronze coinage consisted of AE 4, with only occa-
sional issues of AE 3 and no AE 2 at all. Most of it was struck in Italy. Coins dating before
Arcadius’ death in 408 can easily be distinguished from later ones, and those subsequent to 408
are in Honorius’ name only, for while up to 408 Honorius punctiliously minted in the name of
his older brother, the senior augustus, he saw no need to accord the same recognition to his
nephew and junior partner, Theodosius II. Between 402 and 408, however, while Arcadius was
still alive, the AE 3 of the mint of Rome was struck in the name of Theodosius II, as well as in
those of Honorius and Arcadius. The coinage is set out in Table 39, and only a few comments
on it are necessary.
208 HONORIUS
The coinages of 395-402 are of two different types which circulated indiscriminately in the
West and occur in British and Gallic hoards of the late 390s and the first years of the fifth
century, though not in any quantity. None of them are represented here. Coins struck before
and after 395 are usually differentiated by their having an unbroken obverse inscription or a
broken one (HONORI —- VS). The Gallic type, with a Victory advancing left holding a wreath
and palm, the inscription being VICTORIA AVGG(G), continues that struck in the previous
period and was struck at Trier, Lyon (mainly), and Arles. Specimens of ‘Trier are extremely rare
but, despite the doubts of Gilles (1982, 11-12; 1983, 225), they do exist. Pearce described one
with an AVGG inscription that must have been struck after Theodosius I’s death (RIC IX.107
note; illus. pl. 111.20) and noted the existence of a parallel issue of Arcadius of which there is a
specimen in the British Museum; they are LRBC 173-4. The parallel issue of Lyon (LRBC 398;
Bastien 1987, no. 239) is differentiated from the pre-395 one by a V (for Urbs) in the field, for
this does not occur on coins of Eugenius or Theodosius but has a counterpart, as one would
expect, in the name of Arcadius (LRBC 397; Bastien 1987a, no. 238). Coins of Arles are known
for both Honorius and Arcadius (LRBC 571-2). The issues of Trier and Lyon probably both
ended in 395; those of Arles may have continued a little longer.
The contemporary Italian coinage, struck at Aquileia and Rome, is of the Eastern type with
a Victory dragging a captive left (as 698-700), with the inscription SALVS REIPVBLICAE. At
Aquileia there were two officinae, with mint-marks AQP and AQS (C 32; RIC IX.107/58d; LRBC
1111, 1113). The coins are relatively rare in hoards compared with those of Rome, and it is
possible that the mint, like those of Gaul, was closed down soon after 395, instead of in 402 as
is usually assumed, as the result of a government decision to concentrate the minting of bronze
at Rome. The coins of Rome, from five officinae (mint-mark R followed by an officina initial),
are themselves characterized by surprising varieties of obverse inscription, with Honorius’ name
lacking its initial letter (LRBC 809: D N ONORI — VS P F AVG), or shortened and unaccompan-
ied by P F (LRBC 810: DN HONO - RI AVG). There are coins in the name of Arcadius similarly
abbreviated (LRBC 808: D N ARCA — DI AVG), and in both cases the vagaries presumably result
from the taking on of untrained die-sinkers to cope with expanded output after the closing of
Aquileia. On the omission of the aspirate, see above (pp. 195—6).
The bronze coinage of 402-8, limited to Rome, consisted of AE 3 with the legend VRBS
RO — MA FELIX and a figure of Roma standing with trophy and Victory (728-30). Cohen (C
72) mistakenly described the figure as that of the emperor. Theodosius was allowed to take part
in the issue, which indeed was presumably introduced in his honor. That the instructions to the
mint cannot have been precise as to type or legend is shown by the extraordinary variety of
these, resulting in no fewer than fourteen entries in LRBC (812-25). Roma is sometimes facing,
sometimes looking right; Arcadius and Honorius sometimes have pearl diadems, sometimes
rosette ones; their names are sometimes broken ARCADI — VS and HONORI — VS, sometimes
ARCAD — IVS or HONOR - IVS. The flan is sometimes unusually small and thick (730). These
differences have probably no chronological or other significance and are simply useful in iden-
tifying individual coins. Laffranchi, in describing the Porta Collina (Rome) hoard of 1918 (Laf-
franchi 1919), argued that the “Theodosius” of the coins was Theodosius I and gave them to
394—ca. 398, but such an early dating, though followed by Pearce (in RIC IX.135—6/67-8), is
impossible. Honorius is shown with a broken inscription and mature bust; the unusual mint-
mark is continued almost unchanged under Priscus Attalus; the second officina is S instead of B
(see above, p. 66); the coins do not occur in the many British and Gallic hoards of the 390s. The
transfer to 402-8, argued at length on p. 58 of LRBC, is certainly correct.
EASTERN COINAGES 209
When Arcadius died on 1 May 408, the decision was apparently at once taken to drop his
name and that of Theodosius from the bronze coinage in the West and to discontinue the mint-
ing of AE 3. Between that summer and the usurpation of Priscus Attalus a year later there was
struck LRBC 811, a revived Salus Reipublicae AE 4 coinage of the same type as before but with a
correct Honorius legend (HONOR — IVS) which does not seem to have an Arcadius counter-
part.
In the fall of 409 the usurpation of Priscus Attalus deprived Honorius’ government for a
period of some months of control of Rome, which in the summer of 410 was besieged and finally
sacked by Alaric (24 August). Between 409 and 412 Honorius’ bronze coins consisted mainly of
aberrant issues elsewhere, first in 409 at Ravenna (with SM) and Aquileia, then in 410 at Rome
after its recovery, and finally in 411 or 413 at Ravenna, Lyon, and Arles.
The first group of these coins consisted of AE 3 having for reverse type the emperor and
two captives and a GLORIA ROMANORVM inscription (733-4). They were struck at Aquileia
(AQP, AQS), Rome (SMR and officina initial), and the unspecified mint marked SM (without
officina mark), which it has been argued above was Ravenna. The SM and Aquileia coins can be
dated to 409, when Rome had escaped Honorius’ control, and the Rome ones to 410, when this
city was again in his possession. The other group of AE 3 coins have the same GLORIA RO-
MANORVM inscription but a standing emperor for type. They were struck at Lyon, Arles, and
“SM.” They are best dated either to 411, when the Gallic mints were again briefly subject to
Honorius, or to 413, when they were more permanently recovered. In the latter case, however,
their period of minting would have been only brief, for specimens are extremely rare.
The same is true of the AE 3 of Rome. It was succeeded by AE 4 having a VICTORIA
AVGG inscription and a Victory-advancing-left type (731-2), first with RM in the exergue and
the officina initial in the left field, then with the same but a Christogram in the right field also,
and finally by the same but without officina initial or Christogram. The order of issue proposed
in LRBC is based on logic rather than hoard evidence, so it requires confirmation, and since we
do not know why the changes were made, any precise dating is impossible.
V. Eastern Coinages: Gold and Silver
The Eastern gold and silver coinage struck by Arcadius and Theodosius in the name of
Honorius, but circulating locally and in reality making part of their own coinages, may be con-
sidered separately from the bronze, for they were organized in a different way and probably
independently. They are limited to Constantinople and Thessalonica, the latter being to some
extent a special case. Honorius was usually recognized only in the main coinages, not as a rule
in special issues or multiples, with instructions or reminders sent out on each occasion. The
bronze on the other hand was produced automatically, at least in a number of mints, though in
fewer as time went by.
Constantinople
The Eastern gold coins consisted mainly of solidi. The only gold medallion known to have
been struck was a six-solidus piece having for reverse type the emperor in a chariot drawn by
six horses. It is known from a silver strike at Vienna (C 17; Gnecchi 1912, pl. 36.15) and repro-
duced the types of the gold medallion of Arcadius lost in the great Paris theft of 1831 (above,
p. 106). It was probably struck in 402, when Theodosius II was created augustus.
The solidi fall into five issues, the first three struck under Arcadius and the last two under
210 HONORIUS
TABLE 40
AV and AR of Constantinople in Honorius’ Name, 395-423
Gn = Gnecchi 1912
Denominations, etc. Date Cohen Cat. Other References
Six solidus multiple (silver strike) 402(?) 17 Gn 36/15
Solidus: CONCORDI AVCC(C)
Cpolis seated r.
(a) Inscr. ends CC 395-402 745-50
(b) Inscr. ends CCC 402 764-5
(d) Inscr. ends CCC and star 403-8 6 MIRB 13a
(e) Inscr. ends CC and star 408-19 3 776-80 MIRB 13b
Solidus: CONCORDI AVCC 41] — MIRB 4
Cpolis seated holding shield
w. VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX
Solidus. VOT XX MVLT XXX 420-3 68 789 MIRB 16
Victory I. w. cross
Semissis: VICTORIA AVCC Victory 420 — 790 MIRB 40
seated inscribing XX/XXX on shield
Tremissis: VICTORIA
AVGVSTORYVM Victory facing
(a) No star in field 393-—402 — 751-4
(b) Star in field 403-23 46 781 MIRB 46
Heavy miliarenses (ca. 5.5 g)
GLORIA ROMANORVM Emp.
standing w. spear and shield
(a) No star in fleld 402? 18 Gn 37/2 (5.18 g)
(b) Star in field 403/23 19 Gn 37/1 (4.50 g)
Light miliarense (ca. 4.5 g) 403(?) 782 MIRB 62
GLORIA ROMANORVM Emp.
standing w. raised r. hand; star in
field. (Obv. bust I.)
Siliquae
Vota legend in wreath, CONS and
star beneath.
(a) VOT/X/MVLT/XX 411 (cf. 65) | 783-4 MIRB 64
(b) VOT/XV/MVLT/XX 415 — MIRB N65
(c) VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX 420 — 791 MIRB —
Theodosius. The first four are differentiated according to whether they have CC or CCC in the
legend and by the presence or absence of a star in the field, and the fifth is differentiated by
type, having a Victory with long cross instead of the seated Constantinopolis of the first four.
Dating is set out in Table 40.
The solidi are initially exact counterparts of those of Arcadius, with a CONCORDIA AVCC
inscription and a seated Constantinopolis holding a globe and Victory, but after 402 they con-
tinue this pattern instead of changing to the NOVA SPES ROMANORYVM inscription and Con-
EASTERN COINAGES 211
TABLE 41
Solidi of Thessalonica in Honorius’ Name
This table omits the earliest coins, those of 395 with a profile bust (above, p. 196). The ones
in the table all have as obverse type a three-quarter facing armored bust and on the reverse a
seated Constantinopolis with globe and Victory. They differ in breastplate and shield ornaments,
in the number of G’s or C’s ending the reverse inscriptions, in the presence or absence of a star
in the reverse field, and in the form of the mint-mark (COMOB or TESOB, sometimes
TES.OB). No. 8 is dated to 408 since the main inscription on 785 ends CC and must have been
cut after Arcadius’ death on 1 May. On 771 the original mint-mark COMOB has been changed
to TESOB by recutting the first three letters (cf. Grierson 1961, 7 note 12). See also MIRB 53a,
b; 55 a—c.
Inscr. | Breastplate Shield Reference
ends | Ornament Ornament
395/401
395/401
COMOB
No star 395/401
395/401
402
403/8
403/8
408
408/23
408/23
None
Cross
Christogram
Christogram
Christogram
Christogram
None
None
None
Horseman
Warrior
fighting r.
Horseman
?
Horseman
Horseman
Victory w.
crouching
captive
Victory w.
wreath
and palm
Victory w.
wreath,
captive
to |.
Horseman
MMAG Basel list 268
(Sept. 1966), 36
Schlessinger 31.1.39,
lot 599
756
MMAG Basel list 218
(Jan. 1962), 48
767 (square C’s)
769-70
771
785
Trau 4648; Hess-
Bank Leu sale 41
(24.1v.1969), 712
786
stantinopolis holding a XX/XXX shield of Arcadius’ new type. They thus correspond to the first
coinages of Theodosius II. Whether this was a deliberate attempt to place Honorius and Theo-
dosius on the same level, or whether the mint simply received an instruction to “update” the
coinage already being struck in Honorius’ name—a specific instruction may not have been re-
quired for such a proceeding—we cannot say. Similarly we do not know whether the absence of
any VOT/XX/MVLI/XXxX coins of Honorius with a star after 420 was due to the absence of a
mint instruction or to the coinage having been suspended altogether because of the rift between
the courts of Constantinople and Ravenna in 421/2.
Semisses are very rare, but tremisses are common. The only known semisses are of 420,
with XX/XXX being inscribed by the Victory on a shield (790), but this corresponds to the
Theodosian pattern, for no earlier semisses of his are known. (An apparent XV/XXX on a coin
in a Schulman sale of 17.vi.1924, lot 4009, is probably a die-sinker’s error.) The tremisses divide
into those without a star in the field (751—4) and those with one (781), the earlier group having
a slenderer and more elongated Victory than the later ones.
212 HONORIUS
The silver coins struck for Honorius in the East, which are limited to Constantinople, cover
a range of multiples as well as normal siliquae. The apparent silver “medallion” at Vienna, which
has been noted above, having for reverse type the emperor in a chariot, is a strike in silver of a
gold six-solidus piece and not part of the silver series. The silver multiples all have a GLORIA
ROMANORVM inscription and a standing figure of the emperor, with CON as mint-mark. The
heavy ones show the emperor holding a spear and shield. Those without a star in the field, and
of the full theoretical weight (5.50 g), were struck before 403, probably in 402. Those with a
star, which are of smaller module and reduced weight (4.50 g) reflecting the irregularities in the
weight of the siliqua, are of uncertain date (403/23). The light miliarense (782), having on the
obverse a young left-facing bust of Theodosius II and on the reverse the emperor standing with
a raised right hand, are also of uncertain date, like their Theodosian counterparts (above, pp.
140-1), but may be 403.
Eastern siliquae in the name of Honorius are few, and all have vota inscriptions. Since their
mint-marks are CONS followed by a star they must be post-403. (C 65 is described as VOT/X/
MVLI/XX without star, but presumably in error.) Those with VOT/X/MVLI/XX (783-4) are
fairly common, and the decennalia are probably those of Theodosius II in 411, though since
Arcadian siliquae with the same legend and a star apparently once existed (above, p. 127), a
celebration of Honorius’ own decennalia is not impossible. The coins with VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX
(791) are best attributed to Theodosius II’s vicennalia in 420.
Thessalonica
The dispute over the status of the Prefecture of Illyricum, of which Thessalonica was the
capital, has already been referred to, but it did not affect the coinage. This was limited to solidi
on the pattern of those of Arcadius (Table 41). They began with ones having a profile bust, and
on the reverse a legend ending GGG, with COMOB and a seated Constantinopolis (RIC [X.186/
64g), which were presumably minted during the first months of 395. These were followed later
in the year by the introduction of the armored bust on the obverse and a redesigned figure of
Constantinopolis on the reverse with a Victory added to the globe she holds. The armored bust,
however, though based on that of the coins of the capital, is soon enlivened by variations in the
design of the shield and the breastplate, and the general clumsiness of its treatment is evidence
of the work of unskilled die-sinkers who may have been only sporadically employed. This inco-
herent workmanship is also evident in the lettering, where the Thessalonican G (distinct from
the Constantinopolitan C) is sometimes replaced with a square letter resembling a capital E with
the central bar omitted. The series was studied by Pearce in an appendix to his article on the
gold coinage of Theodosius I (Pearce 1938c, 241—6), but confusedly, and rather more material
is now available. The chronological sequence of issues is set out in Table 41, but since several
varieties are recorded only in single specimens, more may yet come to light.
VI. Eastern Coinages: Bronze
The Eastern bronze struck in Honorius’ name is set out in Table 42, based closely on LRBC.
Apart from one rare issue, it consists entirely of AE 3 or AE 4. This rare issue is an AE 2 of
Constantinople (LRBC 2204) of the same type as the last coinage of Theodosius I, with Gloria
Romanorum and a standing emperor (as 697, etc.), but with a broken instead of an unbroken
obverse legend. It must have been struck early in 395, after the news of Theodosius I’s death
had reached Constantinople but before the decision had been taken to suppress the denomina-
EASTERN COINAGES 213
TABLE 42
Eastern AE in Honorius’ Name, 395—423
Numerals in ordinary type are those of LRBC. Those in boldface refer to the catalogue. The table
omits the AE 2 (LRBC 2204) that was briefly continued at Constantinople in the first months of 395 with Hon-
orius’ name on the obverse broken (above, p. 197). The AE 3 from 403 on have a star behind the bust on the
obverse.
es
395-400 VIRTVS — EXERCITI 2581-2 riba 2918
Emp. cr. by Victory
CONCOR — DIA AVG
Cross
CONCORDI-A AVGG
Cpolis seated |
GLORI-A 9802-| 2924
ROMA — NORVM 3 |
Three figures (774— |
5)
CONCOR - DIA 2807 —
AVGGG Cross |
GLORI-A
ROMA — NORVM
Two figures (787-8)
Same, w. globe
tion. The subsequent coinage follows the same pattern as the corresponding issues of Arcadius
and Theodosius II and need not be discussed here in detail. The dating in the table is essentially
that of LRBC, save in giving 403 instead of 402 as the date for the introduction of the AE 3 with
the minuscule figure of Theodosius II, for the star accompanying the emperor’s head in the
obverse field dates from the child-emperor’s consulship of January 403, as does the same symbol
on the gold (above, pp. 87-8).
CONSTANTINE III
Usurper in Britain, Gaul, and Spain 407—September 411
Colleague: his son Constans 410-11
Constantine was the third of three “tyrants” who in rapid succession revolted in Britain in
the years 407-9, and the only one who enjoyed a considerable degree of success, even if in the
event this was only brief (Demougeot 1974; good accounts in Freeman 1904, 35-129; Bury
1923, I.188—94; Demougeot 1979, II1.436-—46). Marcus and Gratian were in turn acclaimed au-
gustus by their troops in 407 and murdered by them after a few months. The third pretender,
Constantine, is described as a common soldier but was clearly a man of ability and a good leader.
He was either already called Flavius Claudius or immediately assumed these auspicious names,
those of the eldest son of Constantine the Great. In 407 he crossed into Gaul at the head of a
substantial army, defeated some of the Germanic raiders in the lower Rhineland, and subse-
quently seems to have established some sort of modus vivendi with the remainder by which he
occupied eastern Gaul from the North Sea to the Mediterranean while they occupied the west.
He appointed his elder son Constans and his younger son Julian respectively Caesar and nobilis-
semus.
Not till 408 did Honorius take steps against him, but his Gothic troops failed to recapture
Arles, and Constantine sent Constans and an able general, Gerontius, to occupy Spain, where
they established his authority at Saragossa. Constans was recalled to Gaul in 410 and created
augustus, while Constantine extorted a half-recognition of his position from Honorius, who with
Alaric on the rampage in Italy was in no position to deny favors to pretenders who were holding
hostage some members of the Theodosian house captured in Spain. Constantine’s ambitions
next extended to Italy, but his expedition there met with no success, and Gerontius revolted in
Spain, setting up his domesticus Maximus as yet another emperor. In 411 Gerontius, having re-
turned to Gaul, attacked Vienne and killed Constans. Honorius thereupon dispatched his ablest
general, the future emperor Constantius III, against both Gerontius, who was defeated and
committed suicide, and Constantine, who was blockaded in Arles. After a three-month siege,
Constantine recognized his cause as hopeless and formally abdicated, taking holy orders and
surrendering the city in return for a promise that his life would be spared. He and his surviving
son Julian were sent under guard to Ravenna, but Honorius, out of resentment at the fate of his
cousins whom Constantine had eventually put to death, refused to receive them and had them
executed thirty miles from the city (September 411).
Constantine III’s coins were minted at Trier, Lyon, and Arles, and consist almost entirely of
solidi and siliquae, the exceptions being rare tremisses from Arles and half-siliquae and AE 4
from Lyon. The solidi and siliquae are surprisingly common for so short a reign, the explanation
being presumably the usurper’s need for funds to pay his supporters and buy off adversaries;
the detailed registers of finds compiled by Lafaurie and Bastien show indeed how many of his
solidi strayed beyond the imperial frontier into Germany. Some varieties, however, are rare or
214
COINS OF CONSTANTINE III zi5
even unique. The types are almost exclusively the standard ones of the day, the emperor spurn-
ing a captive on the solidus and a seated Roma on the siliqua, but this typological uniformity is
combined with a large range of variant mint-marks and some differences in the style of the
imperial portrait. As none of his mints had been operating during the preceding few years, the
dies in each had to be cut by amateurs of varying degrees of competence brought in for
the purpose. These features are of much assistance in arranging the coinage, but the chief guide
to the chronology results from the fact that Constantine, for at least most of his reign, hoped to
secure recognition by Honorius. Since the mint of Lyon respected the principle of collegiality,
the number of G’s in the Victoria Auggg(g) formula on the gold took account of Honorius and a
varying roster of eastern augustl.
The basic study of the coins was produced by Lafaurie (1953) in connection with his work
on the Chécy hoard (Lafaurie 1958), although for the negative reason that this hoard was buried
before their issue began. The final volume of Bastien’s monograph on the coinage of Lyon
includes a detailed analysis of the Lyon issues and by far the fullest account of their distribution
(Bastien 1987a, 71-5, 131-43, 246-52), and the silver coins of all three mints are dealt with by
King (1987a). Most of the solidi and siliquae have Victoria Auggg(g) inscriptions, and Lafaurie
divided their issue into three phases. The first would have run from the spring or summer of
407 to May/June 408, and in it four G's were used, these standing for Constantine himself and
his colleagues Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius II. The second phase would have run from
May/June 408 to the accession of Constans in June/July 410, with only three G’s, Arcadius having
dropped out from the roster and the three emperors being Constantine, Honorius, and Theo-
dosius II. Finally, there would have been a third phase from June/July 410 to September 411,
with coins having three G’s dated by their close resemblance to ones of Constantine’s son Con-
stans, who was created augustus in the summer of 410 and whose unique siliquae have also a
reverse inscription with three G’s. This arrangement was taken over by Bastien, with no coins of
Lyon placed after 410. Coins with different reverse inscriptions could be placed in one or other
of these periods because of their stylistic resemblance to the solidi and siliquae, and Bastien
carried out an elaborate stylistic analysis of the Lyon coins that seemed to confirm the general
validity of Lafaurie’s arrangement.
Such an arrangement, however, has the disadvantage of leaving the last year of the reign
with no coins for either Lyon or Trier. An alternative assumption would be the immobilization
of the GGG formula at Lyon and Trier and its continuation to 411, while at Arles the introduc-
tion of minting on Constans’ behalf led to the further innovations in mint-marks and reverse
legends that have caused so much confusion to scholars. This implies two phases to the coinage,
the first 407-8 and the second 408-11, with Arles in the second phase subdivided 408-10 and
410-11.
Phase 1. 407—8. Four G’s. Lyon sole mint.
The common solidus of this period has on the obverse D N CONSTANTINVS P F AVG
and a rosette-diademed bust, with a reverse of Emperor-spurning-captive type, VICTORIA
AAAVGGGG, and LD/COMOB (C 6; Lafaurie 3; Bastien 244; 792). The issue will have ended
when the news of Arcadius’ death (1 May 408) reached Gaul, probably in late June or early July.
That the fourth G refers to Theodosius and not to Constans at a later date is shown by the fact
that the three solidi of Constantine III in the Dortmund hoard are all of this type (Regling 1908,
nos. 427-9) and include none with three G’s or any coins of Constantine from Trier or Arles.
216 CONSTANTINE III
Three other solidi, all extremely rare, can be assigned to the start of the same period, and
effectively to 407. One is of the same type but has COM instead of COMOB (C — ; Lafaurie 3b.1;
Bastien 241) and probably preceded it, since while it is die-linked with a COMOB one, it repro-
duces an old reverse of Eugenius (RIC IX.52/45). The others, earlier still, have an obverse leg-
end FL CL CONSTANTINVS AVG and two forms of reverse, one known from a unique spec-
imen at Fribourg having a standing figure of the emperor with RESTITVTOR REIPVBLICAE
and SMLVG (C 1; Lafaurie 1; fuller publication in Lafaurie 1959; Bastien 240), the other, known
from a specimen, likewise unique, in the British Museum, having the same reverse as the regular
solidus of the period (Amandry 1981; C —; Lafaurie 2; Bastien 243). The mint-mark SMLVG
on the first has no precedent at Lyon and seems to be a simple adaptation of that of the common
SMANT solidus of Valens or Valentinian I with the same legend and type, this serving as a
model when the mint was reopened in 407. The use of the emperor's full name in the obverse
inscription, FL(avius) CL(audius) CONSTANTINVS, instead of the D N CONSTANTINVS of
the bulk of his coinage, implies a conscious revival of the style of Constantine II. The uncertain-
ties over mint-mark, type, and legend are characteristic of a newly opened mint before a settled
pattern has been established.
The siliquae attributable to this period are of the seated Roma type and have in the exergue
either LDPV (C — ; Lafaurie 4; Bastien 246), LDPS (C — ; Lafaurie — ; Bastien 245), or SMLD (C
6; Lafaurie 5; Bastien 247). It is possible that the coins with SMLD should be transferred to the
second phase, but the style of the bust relates them to the earlier solidi.
Phase II. 408-411 Three G's. Lyon, Trier, and Arles.
(a) Lyon and Trier 408-11
The coins of Lyon of the second period consist of the common solidi having three G’s and
LD in the field, with COMOB in the exergue (C 5; Lafaurie 6; Bastien 250; 793), and several
denominations of fractional coins. The siliquae carry on those of the preceding phase, with
SMLD in the exergue but only three G’s (C 4; Lafaurie 7; Bastien 251; 794-5). There is in
addition a remarkable half-siliqua in the museum at Lyon (ex Charvet coll.) having as reverse
type a cross between an alpha and an omega, with mint-mark SMLD (C 8; Lafaurie 8; Bastien
252). The only earlier coin remotely resembling it had been the large bronzes struck by Mag-
nentius and Decentius half a century previously having as reverse type a large Chi-Rho between
an alpha and omega. The type was to be reproduced in due course by Jovinus. There are also AE
4 with a Victory right holding a wreath, with LVGP in the exergue (C 3; Lafaurie 9; Bastien 253;
LRBC —).
In this period coinage was also extended to Trier, with solidi having TROBS as mint-mark
(C 5; Lafaurie 10; 796-8) and siliquae with TRMS (C 4; Lafaurie 11; 799-802). Rare specimens
with TROBS: (Lafaurie 10d) presumably followed those without a pellet.
(b) Arles 408-10
There is, finally, Arles with three denominations, solidi, tremisses, and siliquae. The fairly
common solidi with AR in the field and COMOB in the exergue (C 5; Lafaurie 12; 803-4) and
the rather rarer ones with CONOB instead of COMOB (C —; Lafaurie 12a) clearly belong to
this period, as do the very rare tremisses with AR and CONOB (C 2; Lafaurie 13) and the
siliquae with SMAR in the exergue (C 4; Lafaurie 14; 805).
COINS OF CONSTANTINE III 217
(c) Arles 410-11
It is possible that the co-rulership of Constans invited a second return to the usages of the
Constantinian age, this time at Arles, for Banduri (1718, I1.549-—50) records the presence in the
collection of the duc de Maine of a solidus with a FL CL CONSTANTINVS obverse, a reverse
with A R in the field, and a CCC legend, not a CCCC one as on the similar but earlier coin of
Lyon. No such coin, however, has been seen in more recent times, and one must suspect a
confusion between this rare type of Lyon obverse with a normal Arles reverse.
The solidi attributable to this period continue the types and legends of the earlier period
but with new mint-marks, KONOB instead of COMOB on the gold and KONT instead of
CONT on the siliquae. The coins are solidi (C 5; Lafaurie 15; 806), tremisses (C 2; Lafaurie 16,
again wrongly with KOMOB; PCR III.1519), and siliquae (C 4; Lafaurie 17). In the last case
there is a variety with a cross in the left field (807). Since KONT is the mint-mark of the siliqua
of Constans, it serves, as Lafaurie rightly noted, to date this form under Constantine III and,
through the common use of K, the KONOB of the gold.
CONSTANS (ID)
Usurper in Gaul
Son and colleague of Constantine III
Caesar 408-10, Augustus 410-11
The brief career of Constans, who had been a monk before being created caesar (“ex mon-
acho Caesarem factum”), has already been described. He was killed by Gerontius at Vienne in
411 and never had an independent reign.
The only coins struck by Constantine III in his son’s name are extremely rare siliquae of
Arles of the period with a pearl-diademed bust and obverse inscription D N CONSTANS P F
AVG and having on the reverse Roma seated, VICTORIA AAVGGG, and KONT (C 1; Lafaurie
1953, no. 18, but the coin illustrated is a Cigoi forgery). Lafaurie dates their issue prior to
Constantine III’s unfortunate Italian expedition in 410. There seem to be at least two specimens,
one in the Bibliothéque Nationale (illustrated by Cohen) and the other known from its appear-
ance in a succession of French sale catalogues (e.g., Bourgey 18.xii.1912, lot 342; Cugnot colli.).
218
MAXIMUS
Usurper in Spain
Titular augustus 409-11, ca. 420(?)
Maximus was the most obscure and perhaps the most fortunate of the rebels against Hon-
orius. He was the household manager (domesticus) of Constantine III’s general, the dour but
capable Gerontius, and when Gerontius turned against his master he proclaimed Maximus au-
gustus at Tarragona. Gerontius sustained his rebellion for two years, but in 411 he failed to
reduce Arles, where Constantine was holding out, and on the approach of the imperial army
under the future emperor Constantius III, his troops turned against him and he committed
suicide. Maximus was pardoned, and in 417 was living in obscure exile “inter barbaros in His-
pania.” He was not fortunate, however, if he is to be identified with the Maximus tyrannus who
tried to seize power in Spain in ca. 420, for this Maximus was captured and subsequently exe-
cuted at the public games that graced the celebration of Honorius’ tricennalia at Ravenna in 422.
Maximus’ coins of 409-11, on which there now exists a detailed study with a corpus of
known specimens (Balaguer 1980), were in the past sometimes attributed to Petronius Maximus.
They were till recently thought to be limited to siliquae minted at Barcelona (mint-mark SMBA),
but specimens of AE 4 were found at Tipasa in 1957 (Turcan 1961, 204—5) and at Barcelona in
1959 (Calico 1960) and, more unexpectedly, an AE 2 came to light at Tarrasa in 1975 (Nuix
1976). More specimens of both denominations have since been discovered (cf. especially Lafau-
rie and Lafont 1979). Balaguer’s article effectively supersedes most of the earlier literature by
Vegué (1963), Villaronga (1976, 14), and others, but see also King (1987a, 369-70).
The siliquae have on the obverse a bearded bust—there are Cigoi forgeries on which the
bust is beardless, for example, Trau sale cat., lot 4467 (also with SMB instead of SMBA)—with
the legend D N MAXIMVS P F AVG. The reverse has a seated Roma holding a globe and
Victory in her right hand and a reversed spear with her left, the legends being VICTORIA
AVCCC and the mint-mark, where legible, SMBA. No significance can be attached to the num-
ber of G’s, since Maximus can scarcely have hoped for recognition by Honorius and Theodosius
II. The weight is ca. 1 g. About 20 specimens are known.
The AE 2 (diam. 20 mm, wt. ca. 5 g) have a similar obverse and on the reverse the same
legend with a standing figure of the emperor giving his hand to a woman kneeling at his right.
The mint-mark is SMBA. Only two specimens have been recorded.
The AE 4 (12 mm, ca. 3 g) has a similar obverse and as reverse type a Victory advancing
left with crown and palm. The attribution depends on the bearded bust and the partial legend
on one specimen ]VS P F AVG, for no fully legible obverse or reverse legend has yet been found.
219
JOVINUS
Usurper in Gaul
Augustus 41 1—August 413
Colleague: Sebastian 412-13
Jovinus was a Gallo-Roman of good family who had come to terms with the leaders of some
of the Germanic peoples settling down in the Rhineland and who in 411 was proclaimed augus-
tus by the Burgundian king Gundahar and his Alan ally Goar at Muntzen (Mundiacum) near
Tongres in Germania Secunda. Nothing is known of his background or qualifications, but the
fact that he was able to mint at Trier, Lyon, and Arles shows that he must have been recognized
over at least all eastern Gaul. His regime lasted less than two years. His downfall came about
through the intrigues of Athaulf, who at first offered him help, then took exception at Jovinus’
promotion of his brother Sebastian to the rank of augustus (412), and finally agreed with Hon-
orius, through the mediation of the praetorian prefect Dardanus, to dispose of the two usurpers.
Sebastian was defeated and killed, and Jovinus blockaded in Valence, captured, and executed
with another brother, Sallust, by Dardanus at Narbonne. The fragmentary Ravenna annals (Bis-
choff and Koehler 1939, 127), which include a few illustrations, record—and depict—the arrival
of the severed heads of the three brothers at Ravenna on 30 August of a consular year corre-
sponding to 412, an evident error for 413.
Jovinus’ coins are limited to solidi, siliquae, and half-siliquae; no tremisses or bronze coins
are known. The obverse legend is always D N IOVINVS P F AVG, and the emperor has nor-
mally a pearl diadem. The solidi are all of the type showing the emperor spurning a captive, but
usually with a Restitutor Reipublicae legend taken over from Constantine III's earliest coins of
Lyon and appropriate to a different type. When there is a Victoria Augg legend, it has only two
G’s. The change in legend was perhaps caused by the elevation of Sebastian, with the second G
referring to him, but since it has this form on all the siliquae, it may be no more than a customary
formula. Clearly Jovinus, unlike Constantine III, made no attempt to take account of either
Honorius or Theodosius II. The reverse type of the siliqua is an enthroned Roma. The silver
coins are dealt with by King (1987a, 367-8).
The commoner solidi of Trier (C 1: illus. PCR I1I.1523) have COMOB in the exergue, TR
in the field, and legend RESTITVTOR REIP(publicae), the others (C 5) TROBS in the exergue
and the more usual legend VICTORIA AVGG. The accompanying siliquae have Roma seated
left with a VICTORIA AVGG legend and TRMS in the exergue (C 4; 810-11).
At Lyon the very rare solidi, of notably careful design and with Restitutor legend, have LD
in the field and in the exergue COMOB (C 1; Bastien 1987a, no. 254; 808) or -COMOB (Bastien
255). They are accompanied by siliquae of the same type and legend as those of ‘Trier, the seat
being normally of the curule variety and the mint-mark being SMLD (C 4; Bastien 256) or
SMLDV (C 4; Bastien 258; 809). There is also a half-siliqua (C 8; Bastien 257) having as reverse
type a cross flanked by an alpha and an omega, like the corresponding coin of Constantine III,
with SMLD in the exergue.
The solidi of Arles (C 1) are of the same type and legend as those of Lyon but with AR in
the field and COMOB in the exergue. The siliquae are of the same type as elsewhere, with either
type of seat, RESTITVTOR REIP as inscription, and KONT in the exergue (C 3; illus. PCR III.
1524).
220
SEBASTIAN
Brother of Jovinus
Usurper in Gaul 412-13
Sebastian’s career has been sufficiently described under that of Jovinus. The only coins
struck by his brother in his name are siliquae of extreme rarity, and so far no hoard evidence
has been produced that would confirm their authenticity. All have the usual profile bust on the
obverse with the legend D N SEBASTIANVS P F AVG, and the customary Roma seated left on
the reverse. The Cabinet des Médailles has an Arles specimen with VICTORIA AVGG and
KONT (C 1) and a Trier one with VRBS ROMA and TRPS (C 3). Pearce (1933b, 221/5) accepted
the authenticity of the former but not the latter, which he dismissed as a tooled coin of Gratian.
Cohen lists a third coin (C 2) in the Wiczay collection with a facing Roma, VIRTVS ROMA-
NORVM, and TRES, which is probably a tooled concoction of the eighteenth century. King
(1987a, 368) located no fewer than nine ostensible specimens, but regarded most of them as
either doubtful or certainly false.
221
PRISCUS ATTALUS
Pretender
Titular augustus (in Italy), autumn 409—June 410
Again, in Gaul, 415—May 416, deposed
Died after 417 in prison
Priscus Attalus was a Roman Senator of Greek (Ionian) origin who played a role in negoti-
ating with the Goths in 408 and was rewarded by being appointed count of the sacred largesses
in January 409 and prefect of Rome later in the year. He was a pagan in the circle of Symmachus
and a man of considerable literary culture. Late in 409, after Alaric had captured Porto and its
granaries and was threatening to starve out Rome, he came to terms with the Gothic leader,
agreeing to assume the imperial title in opposition to the incompetent Honorius in return for a
promise of Alaric’s support. Soon afterward he allowed himself to be baptized, though at the
hands of a Gothic and therefore Arian bishop.
Early in 410 the allies marched against Ravenna and Honorius prepared for flight, but the
city was saved by troops sent urgently from the East. Attalus and Alaric quickly fell out, Attalus
being unwilling to consent to the military steps Alaric judged necessary to establish his position.
The Goths and Honorius reached a settlement, though an extremely temporary one, and At-
talus was solemnly deposed at Rimini ( June 410), receiving a formal pardon from Honorius but
remaining a prisoner in Gothic hands and presumably a helpless spectator of the sack of Rome
(24-26 August). He was brought to Gaul by Alaric’s successor and in January 414 turned his
literary talents to account by composing an epithalamium in celebration of Athaulf’s marriage
to Placidia at Narbonne. In 415 Athaulf nominated him emperor a second time, but he proved
useless as an ally against Honorius and was quickly abandoned. Constantius captured him some-
time in April or May 416, the news of his downfall being celebrated at Constantinople on 28
June. Honorius, presumably fearing that his execution would anger the Senate, spared his life,
but after using him to grace a triumph in Rome in celebration of his eleventh consulship, exiled
him to the island of Lipari minus his forefinger and thumb, the same mutilation, rendering a
man unfit to draw a bow, that Attalus had contemptuously threatened to impose on Honorius at
his own moment of apparent triumph six years before.
Attalus’ coins seem to be confined to his first reign, when he was in control of the mint of
Rome. They consist of solidi, tremisses, heavy quarter-pound silver multiples, light miliarenses,
siliquae, and AE 3, and form two classes, one without a star in the field and the other with one.
Despite the absence of positive evidence from inscriptions, it is likely that Attalus proclaimed
himself consul in January 410 and that the star indicates coins minted during that year. The
types make regular use of the seated figure of Roma facing, a novelty on solidi and tremisses,
with the proud legend INVICTA ROMA AETERNA. They are evidence of his Roman and
perhaps pagan tastes, but scarcely of an intention to restore the famous Altar of Victory, as
Ulrich-Bansa, who has usefully commented on the coinage, suggests (Ulrich-Bansa 1949, 173-
4 notes 19-20).
222
COINAGE OF PRISCUS ATTALUS 223
The Roman coins without a star are solidi, silver multiples, possibly siliquae (see below), and
AE 3. The solidi (C 3; 812) have a portrait with rather heavy features, in which some commen-
tators have professed to see evidence of his Greek origins, and a seated Roma facing. The em-
peror has a pearl diadem. The silver multiples (C 5-6; Gnecchi 1912 pl. 37.6, 7; PCR III.1522)
are of the same type as the solidus but with RMPS as mint-mark; and the emperor's diadem is
of a banded type of Constantinian pattern. There is no star in the field, so they probably rep-
resent an accession issue. Their abnormally large size—50 mm in diameter and weights of ca.
80 g: they are better regarded as convenient fractions of the Roman pound and not as siliqua
multiples—has been thought to indicate a shortage of gold, but Attalus’ solidi are not especially
rare, and a desire for showy gifts to Attalus’ Germanic allies is a more likely explanation. The
AE 3 (C 13-14; LRBC 826) have a Victory left with wreath and palm and the legend VICTORIA
ROMANORVM, with SMVRM—the V is for urbts—in the exergue and OF with a numeral in
the field.
The denominations with a star in the field are the solidus, tremissis, miliarense, and siliqua.
The solidi are as before, but with a star in the right field and the emperor shown wearing a
rosette diadem (C 3; 813). There are occasional mules between the two classes (e.g., Hans Schul-
man sale, 24.iv.1952, lot 1174). The tremisses are of the same type as the solidus, but the diadem
is a pearl one (C 4; illus. in Vierordt sale cat., 5.i11.1923, lot 2900). The light miliarense (C 11;
Gn III suppl. pl., 4.00 g, Vienna; another, damaged, in the Apostolo Zeno sale, I1.2408), also
with a pearl diadem, has a Victory left with wreath and palm, the legend being VICTORIA
ROMANORVWM and the mint-mark PST (i.e., pusulatum), a specific reference to Rome being
omitted because it was Attalus’ only regular mint. The siliqua (C 7; illus. in Glendining sale cat.,
20.xi.1961, lot 445; also BM, 1.76 g) has the usual seated Roma of this denomination but an
INVICTA ROMA AETERNA legend and PST as mint-mark. Cohen records the existence of
specimens without a star in the field.
An exceptional siliqua of Attalus has a Victoria Aucc inscription and the seated Roma type
familiar in north Italy and Gaul (C — ). Two specimens are known, one in the British Museum
(acquired in 1957) and the other at Dumbarton Oaks (814). The mint-mark is PSRV, though on
the British Museum specimen it is not clear that there is anything before the S and the V is
obscure. The type suggests a Gallic issue of 415-16, but it is difficult to see why in that case
NARB should not have been used. Ravenna was never in Attalus’ hands, and the coin was pre-
sumably struck while Attalus and Alaric were besieging the city in 410 and in anticipation of its
capture, the obverse die having been brought from Rome and the reverse one, much inferior in
style, having been made in the camp. Kent (in NC 1988, 262) regards it, however, as a Gallic
pseudo-Ravennate issue. C 15, a supposed siliqua in the former Sabatier collection with the
mint-mark TRPS and now in the Hermitage (Pridik 1930, 82, no. 42), with a very large bust and
clipped edges, is presumably a product of tooling, for Trier was never in the hands of either
Attalus or his Visigothic allies. A supposed solidus (C 8) cited by Cohen from Mionnet (1827,
11.359), having as reverse type a standing emperor raising a prostrate woman, with NB in the
field and COMOB in the exergue, could conceivably be a coin of his second reign struck at
Narbonne. Carson has pointed out (Carson 1950, 148) that the legend (RESTITVTIO REIP) is
blundered and regards the coin as doubtful, but Priscus Attalus’ earlier coinage at Rome is
evidence of his taste for unusual if archaic types, and the coin may yet come to light and prove
to be authentic.
ANONYMOUS AE 4 COINAGE OF CARTHAGE
A small group of AE 4 of the period of Honorius or Valentinian III consists of coins having
on the obverse an imperial bust accompanied by an inscription referring to one or more un-
named emperors. One type bears the name of Carthage in the reverse legend, assuring their
African origin despite the absence of a formal mint-mark and the fact that none have so far
turned up in the Carthage excavations. The listings in LRBC 576-80 are expanded in the ac-
companying table.
LRBC Obv. legend Rev. legend and type References
576 DOMINO-—NOSTRO — CART-—A-GINE PP. BMC Vand 19, nos. 15—16 (pl. 11,
Victory adv. 1. 4—5); enlargements in Clover
1978, 10, fig. 3
577 DOMINO-—NOSTRO ~~ VICTORI-A[VG].Emp. BMC Vand 24, no. 54 (pl. 111.25)
standing w. labarum and
globe
578 DOMINO-—NOSTRO Gate BMC Vand 28, no. 83 (pl. 111.40)
579 DOMINIS—NOSTRIS SALVS REIPVBLICE. Pearce and Wood 1934, 277 (pl.
Gate viu1.4)
580 DOMINORVM NOSTR Cross in wreath BM
P AVG
Wroth (BMC Vand 19 note 1) was inclined to attribute them to the early Vandal period, and
Pearce and Wood, in discussing the piece with Domuinis nostris in a Dalmatian hoard, suggested
that this legend referred to the good relations between the Vandals and Valentinian III in the
late 440s implied by the betrothal of Gaiseric’s son Huneric to Valentinian’s daughter Eudocia.
Morrisson has likewise accepted the early Vandal period, with the initiative perhaps being taken
by the municipal authorities at Carthage (Morrisson 1974, 462). Other scholars have preferred
to give them to some earlier rebel in Africa, with Gildo (397-8), Heraclian (413), or Boniface
(423-9) as likely candidates. Turcan, discussing three specimens in the Tipasa hoard from the
Villa des Fresques, believed that, despite their small module, they should be attributed to Gildo
(Turcan 1961, 207-12). The authors of LRBC, and Clover (1978b, 8-10), prefer Count Boniface,
who is generally depicted as having taken advantage of the uncertain succession in 423 to make
himself virtually independent, defeating an imperial army sent against him in 427 and coming
to terms with Placidia and the imperial government only after he had initiated the final loss of
Africa by inviting the Vandals to cross the straits in 429 (Bury 1923, 1.244-8).
It is not, however, clear (Clover 1980, esp. 73—4) that Boniface’s “rebellion” covered the
whole of the years 423—9 instead of being confined to 423—4 (usurpation of John) and 427-9;
and a serious objection to his responsibility for the coins is the fact that a pot hoard found at
Carthage in 1985 and dating from the 430s contained none of them, in sharp contrast to the
presence of no fewer than 9 coins of John and over 79 of Valentinian III (Mostecky 1985, esp.
71). One would also have expected more than three specimens in the Tipasa hoard just alluded
to if the coins were of the 420s. Against an attribution to Gildo, on the other hand, apart from
the small size of the coins, is the existence of a type with a cross in a wreath, for this only
appeared in the imperial series in the later years of Arcadius. Possibly the coins should be spread
over several of these occasions, more especially since the rebellions of Gildo and Heraclian each
lasted too short a time to justify such a variety of types and legends.
224
CONSTANTIUS III
Augustus 8 February—2 September 421
Constantius was reluctantly created augustus by his brother-in-law Honorius in February
421. He was an experienced soldier with a highly creditable military record. A provincial from
Naissus in Dacia, the fact of his being a Roman and not a barbarian made him eligible for
imperial office, and he had been mainly responsible for restoring Honorius’ authority in Gaul
after the usurpation of Constantine III. He was created consul in 414 and in 414-16 cam-
paigned successfully against the Visigoths, whom he forced to surrender Placidia, the half-sister
of Honorius and widow of Athaulf, whom the Goths had carried off a prisoner in 410.
On | January 417 Constantius was made consul for the second time and given Placidia, with
whom he was apparently deeply in love, as a bride. Since the twice-married Honorius was child-
less, this implied his becoming the emperor’s most likely successor. Over the next two years,
Placidia gave birth to a daughter and a son, Justa Grata Honoria and the future emperor Val-
entinian III. In January 420 Constantius was nominated consul for the third time, an unusual
honor for a subject, his associate being the Eastern emperor Theodosius, and on 8 February 421
he was created augustus, his wife becoming an augusta at apparently the same time. Placidia
seems to have had little affection for her dour husband, who resented the tedium and protocol
of court life, and Theodosius declined to recognize his promotion. Constantius died only seven
months later, on 2 September, apparently of pleurisy. This may in the short run have saved the
Empire from civil war, for he was unlikely to have put up with such treatment of his wife and
himself by the court at Constantinople, but the loss of his conspicuous military talents was a
major misfortune for the Empire. Contemporary sources and modern scholars agree that he
was one of the great might-have-beens of late Roman history.
The normal practice for a newly associated emperor would be for coins to be struck in his
name but of the same types as those of his senior colleague. Constantius III’s coins are fairly
common solidi of Emperor-spurning-captive type (C 1; 815) and extremely rare tremisses (C 2;
illus. in Trau cat. 4653 ex Montagu cat. 977). They are all of Ravenna.
Two types of silver coin have been attributed to Constantius, but one (C 3) is false and the
other (C 4—5) barbarous.
The first coin, of which there is a specimen at Dumbarton Oaks (816), is something of a
mystery, which justifies its being illustrated here. It is ostensibly a half-siliqua having on the
obverse D N CONSTANTIVS P F AVG and a profile bust, on the reverse VICTORIA ROMA-
NORVM and a Victory advancing left with wreath and palm, with SMN in the exergue. Speci-
mens have been known since the eighteenth century. One in the French royal collection was
listed by Ducange (1680, 32, incorrectly reading VICTORIA DOMINORVM) under Constan-
tius II, to which Banduri (1718, I.376) added a specimen in the Joseph Foucault collection.
Ducange’s specimen is still in the Cabinet des Médailles, and the one here, from the same dies,
is probably, like 832 of Galla Placidia, from the Foucault collection. But SMN is impossible as a
mint-mark for Constantius III, and the two coins must be dismissed as very skillful seventeenth-
century forgeries.
225
226 COINS OF CONSTNTIUS III
The other coins listed by Cohen have VOT (or VOTIS)/V/MVLT/X in a wreath with LVG
beneath, the obverse legend being CONSTANTIVS AVG sometimes preceded by DN. All spec-
imens of which illustrations are available (e.g., Hess-Bank Leu sale 41, 24.vi.1969, lots 717-18)
seem from their style to be Germanic imitations with blundered legends of Constantine HI or
Constans.
JOHN
20 November 423—June 425
Honorius’ death on 15 August 423 left the future of the West uncertain, for he had no
obvious successor. His nephew Valentinian was at Constantinople, but Theodosius, who was now
in theory ruler of both East and West, had declined to recognize the boy’s father, Constantius
III, as emperor and would not necessarily be better disposed toward the son. Not till three
months had gone by did a local candidate appear in the person of John, a civilian who held the
office of primicerius notariorum, effectively the head of the palace bureaucracy with great influence
over appointments. The date of his proclamation is given as 20 November by the Ravennate
annals. Since nothing is known of his family, and he is described as a man of low birth, he must
have had considerable abilities to reach so high a position in government, and subsequent tra-
dition spoke well of him. But Theodosius refused him recognition, and in the West his authority
was limited to Italy and parts of Gaul, where he could count on the support of Castinus, the
magister militum, and of Aetius, soldier and palace official then in the early stages of a career that
was to make him arbiter and defender of the West during the next three decades.
John’s reign lasted ony a year and a half. Early in 424 Theodosius decided not to follow his
grandfather’s example in trying to rule both East and West but to set up the young Valentinian
as a junior colleague. Galla Placidia was recognized as augusta and her son as nobilissimus, while
his late father was posthumously accepted as a legitimate augustus. Toward the end of 424, a
large army was dispatched under the command of an Alan officer, Ardaburius, and his son
Aspar to escort Placidia and Valentinian to Italy and install them in power. Valentinian was
created caesar at Thessalonica on 23 October. The army was then divided. Aspar and Placidia
successfully occupied Aquileia, but Ardaburius was shipwrecked on the Adriatic coast and
brought a prisoner to Ravenna. There he managed to suborn the loyalty of some of John’s
officers, so that when Aspar advanced on the city, it fell by a mixture of surprise and treachery.
John was sent a prisoner to Aquileia and executed at Placidia’s orders, probably in June, but the
exact date is unknown. Aetius arrived with a huge contingent of Huns just too late to save him
but sufficient to secure his own position under the new regime.
John’s coinage, of which a good study exists (Ulrich-Bansa 1976), carried on the pattern of
Honorius’ last issues virtually unchanged. The main mint was Ravenna, the extreme rarity of
his coins of Rome, Milan, Arles, and Trier suggesting that at these places such recognition as he
received was only brief in character. He is shown on the coins as handsome, middle-aged, and
bearded, the portrait being probably intended as a likeness since no one accused him of the
paganizing or philosophical interests that had accounted for the beards of Julian and Eugenius.
He wears a rosette diadem instead of a pearl one.
Ravennate issues consist essentially of solidi, tremisses, siliquae, half-siliquae, and AE 4, with
a semissis apparently known to Banduri (C 5). The obverse legend is D N IOHANNES P F AVC,
and the gold coins have RV in the reverse field. The solidi (C 4; 819) have as reverse type the
emperor spurning a captive, the tremisses (C 8; 820-1) a Victory advancing right with wreath
and globus cruciger, both types being those used under Honorius. They are commoner than is
227
228 COINAGE OF JOHN
usually supposed, probably through having been minted in quantity for advance payments to
the Huns. The siliqua is of the VRBS ROMA type with RVPS in the exergue (C 9), the only
specimens known being in Paris (illus. Ulrich-Bansa 1976, 286, no. 5) and London (PCR
111.1529). The half siliqua (C 3; BN specimen illus. Ulrich-Bansa 1976, 287, no. 6; another in
the Lejeune coll., Peus sale 250, 15.11.1954, lot 1914) has a Victory left with wreath and palm,
the legend being VICTORIA AVGG, with RV in the exergue.
The only known gold coin of any mint other than Ravenna is a unique solidus with MD in
the field which came on the market in 1950 (Glendining sale, 16.xi.1950, lot 2073, from the Platt
Hall coll.) after the publication of Ulrich-Bansa’s monograph on Milan, but which this scholar
managed to acquire and include in his article on John’s coinage (1976, 281, no. 1). The existence
of such a coin is unexpected, for the mint of Milan had ceased operating in 404 and a regular
output did not resume there till the 440s. No gold is known of Rome, and it is possible that John
never visited the city after his initial seizure of power there, though on the face of it this seems
unlikely, and some gold coin may yet come to light. There is an AE 4 of Victory-dragging-captive
type and a SALVS REIPVBLICE inscription (C 1-2; 822-3) and a variety of mint-marks, either
RM with officina numeral in field (PCR III.1527 w. €), or RM preceded or followed by an officina
numeral (LRBC 833-4, 837, 838). They have occurred sporadically in hoards of the middle
decades of the century, notably in one of unstated provenance acquired in 1934 by Lawrence
(Pearce 1934b, 282) and in one from Carthage (Mostecky 1985, but without description). VIC-
TORIA AVGG coins of Arles exist with CON preceded by an officina numeral (LRBC 575), and,
even apart from these, the statement by a contemporary chronicler that John was unable to
punish the murder of his praetorian prefect at Arles shows that at some point in his reign he
was recognized there. He was likewise recognized at Trier, for a siliqua of the Urbs Roma type
exists (Koblitz 1928, 46, no. 1, from Hirsch sale 31, 6.v.1912, lot 2016 = Ars Classica sale 18,
10.x.1938, lot 538), and perhaps a Virtus Romanorum one (C 15). Ulrich-Bansa, however, believed
these to be false (1976, 287 note 16).
The mints of Ravenna and Milan both minted under John in the name of Theodosius II,
for the Milanese solidus of John shares a reverse die with one of Theodosius (Ulrich-Bansa 1976,
281) and two of the mint-marks of John’s AE 4 of Rome appear also on ones of Theodosius II
(LRBC 831-2, 835-6). The coins were presumably struck at the beginning of John’s reign, while
he still hoped for recognition in the East.
GALLA PLACIDIA
Daughter of Theodosius I, wife of Constantius III
Augusta (8 February?) 421-27 November 450
Galla Placidia ranks with Helena, Pulcheria, and Theodora as one of the best-remembered
of late Roman empresses, for she has left a tangible memorial behind her in the buildings and
mosaics with which she adorned Ravenna, her favorite residence in the last years of her life. Her
career is unusually well documented, and although a biography in the strict sense is impossible,
there are several modern accounts of her “life and times” (Sirago 1961, with the severe com-
mentary by Ruggini 1962; Oost 1968; Mazzolani 1975; W. Ensslin in RE XX.2 [1950], 1910-31;
she plays only a minor role in Holum 1982). The study of her coinage by Voirol (1945) is inad-
equate and superficial.
(Aelia) Galla Placidia was Theodosius’ only surviving daughter by his second wife Galla,
daughter of Valentinian I, and was thus half-sister to the emperors Arcadius and Honorius as
well as younger than they were, being probably born in 388. As an infant she was established in
a separate household at Constantinople—her mother died in 394—but after Theodosius’ death
her guardians decided that she should live with Honorius in the West. It was there that she was
effectively brought up. She showed at an early age the streak of ruthlessness she was to display
later in disposing of the usurper John, for as the only member of the imperial family on the
spot she gave her approval in 408 to the judicial murder of Serena, widow of Stilicho and her
own cousin, in whose household she had spent much of her teens. She fell into the hands of the
Visigoths when Alaric captured Rome later in the year and was in due course carried off by
them to Gaul. There in 414, in defiance of Honorius’ wishes, she consented to marry Alaric’s
successor, Athaulf. In 415 she gave birth to a son, named Theodosius after his grandfather, but
the boy died a few weeks later. After Athaulf’s death she was badly treated by his successor, but
in the end was handed over to Honorius in return for 600,000 measures of grain.
Soon after Galla Placidia’s arrival in Ravenna, she married (417) Honorius’ general Con-
stantius, whom we are told had fallen deeply in love with her, and in 421, since she had already
given birth to their son, the future Valentinian III, she was probably created augusta on the
same day as her husband, that is, 8 February. Constantius died later in the year, on 2 September,
and Placidia remained an honored augusta at Honorius’ court. Then they quarreled, and she
took refuge with her son at Constantinople. After Honorius’ death (423) and the usurpation of
John, Theodosius somewhat reluctantly recognized Valentinian as co-emperor and took steps to
secure his installation in the West. Since the new emperor was only a boy of six, it was his mother,
a hard-headed and experienced woman, who effectively placed him in power, and for the first
years of his reign it was she who virtually ruled the West, or at least such parts of it as were not
yet occupied by Germanic peoples. Little is known of the details of her life apart from her
building activities at Ravenna, where she spent most of her time, but there are indications that
in her later years her character had somewhat mellowed with age. She is reputed to have pre-
vented the angry Valentinian from putting his sister Honoria to death after her approach to
Attila (below, p. 242), and at the very end of her life she recovered from Barcelona the casket in
229
230 GALLA PLACIDIA
which her son Theodosius had been interred so that it could be buried in the family mausoleum
at Rome. She died on 27 November 450 and was buried beside her son.
Four groups of coins were struck in Placidia’s name, though only in the first and third is she
likely to have played any personal role:
(1) solidi minted at Ravenna of 421, struck during the reign of her second husband and
perhaps for a short time afterward down to her banishment to Constantinople, together with a
medallion attributable to 422;
(2) Constantinopolitan coins struck in her name by Theodosius II in 424-5;
(3) Italian issues of her “restoration,” struck at the four mints of Aquileia, Ravenna (mainly),
Milan, and Rome and nominally over the period 425-30 but, except for those of Ravenna,
probably all in 425;
(4) a Constantinopolitan issue in her name by Theodosius II in 442/3.
On her Western coins, Placidia is given her full name (D N GALLA PLACIDIA P F AVG),
while the earlier Eastern issues replace D N Galla by Aelia not, as has been suggested, for any
reason of hostility to her mother or herself, but because the use of short names was customary
in the East as against the longer ones in the West. Her bust on the solidi, but on this denomina-
tion only, shows a Manus Dei holding a crown above the empress’ head. The coin types are either
those customary for empresses or the regular ones of contemporary imperial issues, save where
the military character of these made them unsuitable. The only unusual type is that of the
medallion of her first period, the reverse type of which looks forward to the solidi of Licinia
Eudoxia.
I. Coinage of 421-2
The coinage of what may be regarded as Placidia’s first “reign” seems to have been limited
to a normal solidus, a semissis, and a medallion of 1% solidi. The solidus has a SALVS
REIPVBLICAE inscription and as reverse type a seated Victory inscribing a Chi-Rho on a shield
(C 3; 817). The semissis has a Chi-Rho in a wreath and the legend SALVS REIPVBLICAE (C
10; 818); it may perhaps be of her second reign. The medallion has on the obverse the empress’
profile bust with a Chi-Rho ornament on her shoulder and on the reverse a SALVS REIPVBLI-
CAE legend and a facing representation of Placidia, crowned, nimbate, and holding a volumen,
seated on a high-backed throne, with RV in the field and COMOB in the exergue (C 7; Gn |
and pl. 20.2; UB pls. F/G c, d). The two known specimens, in Paris and the Dutch national
collection, are from the Velp hoard of 1715, and, like the Honorius medallions found with them
(above, p. 202), are splendidly framed and mounted as pieces of jewelry. They weigh, including
the mounts, 31.4 g and 40.0 g respectively, and while the precise weights of the medallions alone
cannot be ascertained, their diameter (24 mm) implies that they are sesquisolidi. The “seated
empress” type matches that of the seated Roma on a high-backed throne of the Honorius me-
dallions in the same hoard.
II. Constantinopolitan Coinage of 424-5
This coinage consists of solidi of Constantinopolitan style and fabric on which the empress
is styled AEL PLACIDIA AVG in the Eastern fashion, without either GALLA or the comple-
mentary titles and formulae D N and P F. The reverse type is that current at Constantinople at
the time with a Cross and Victory and a VOT XX MVLT XXX inscription with star in field (C
14; MIRB 21; 824). The coins are rather rare, and such as are recorded in the Dumbarton Oaks
COINAGE OF GALLA PLACIDIA 231
photofile have either no officina numeral or are of officina I, with several dies in both cases,
suggesting that the tenth officina was for a time assigned the issue. They can be dated to the
winter of 424—5, after Theodosius had decided to recognize Placidia’s position and while she
was still at Constantinople before setting out for the West.
III. Italian Coinage of 425 and 425-30
Placidia brought with her to the West the Constantinopolitan solidus reverse type of Cross
and Victory and the legend VOT XX MVLT XXX, with the star in the reverse field which had
just reestablished itself as part of Eastern coin designs. The coins were the work of Western die-
sinkers, however, and both the bust and the Victory are quite different from those of Constan-
tinople, the bust notably being larger and having on the shoulder a Chi-Rho monogram as on
the Ravennate coins of her first “reign.” The exergual legend is COMOB instead of CONOB.
The earliest solidi of the series are extremely rare ones of Aquileia, with AQ in the field (C
13; 825). They must have been struck in the summer of 425, when Placidia and Valentinian are
known to have been in Aquileia from May to at least 6 August.
From Aquileia the imperial pair set out for Rome, where Valentinian was formally pro-
claimed augustus on 23 October and where they stayed till the end of the following February.
They no doubt spent a short time in Ravenna on their way, for it is to such a visit that the earliest
of Valentinian’s own solidi are best ascribed (below, p. 235; 835). There seems to be no corre-
sponding issue for Placidia, and die-links between Placidia’s coins of Aquileia and of Rome sug-
gest that some obverse dies were transferred from the one place to the other. The rare RM solidi
(C 13; 828) can be assigned to the winter of 425/6 (October/February).
There remain the solidi of Ravenna, with RV in the field, almost the only coins of Placidia
that have any claim to be called common (C 13; 826-7). Their issue is likely to have begun in
March 426, when Placidia settled down with her son in the city which we do not hear of them
leaving for eleven years, till in 437 Valentinian departed for Constantinople to fetch his bride
Licinia Eudoxia. The legend on the coins implies that they were all minted before 430, although
one cannot exclude the possibility of the legend having been immobilized beyond that date.
They are very uniform in style, with die-links fairly numerous, though in a coinage semi-
ceremonial in character this does not necessarily imply a short period of issue. The only variety
of any note is the frequent substitution of a cross for the Chi-Rho on the empress’ shoulder.
Whether Placidia’s semisses (818) are of her first or second reign is uncertain. Her tremisses
have either a Chi-Rho in a wreath (C 15; 829-30) or a cross in a wreath (C 17; 831), in both
cases with COMOB beneath. How they are to be divided between Ravenna and Rome is not
clear, and it is possible that those with a Chi-Rho may belong to Placidia’s first “reign.”
Silver coins of Ravenna, minted before or after 430, are as follows:
(1) Siliquae with a seated Victory inscribing a Chi-Rho on a shield and having RVPS in the
exergue (C 5; PCR II1.1542).
(2) Siliquae with a cross in a wreath and RV in the exergue (C 18; illus. in Trau sale cat., lot
4658).
(3) Half-siliquae with a Chi-Rho in a wreath and RV beneath (C 16; 833; PCR II1.1543).
This series of Ravennate issues was accompanied by a siliqua of Rome having a seated Vic-
tory inscribing a Chi-Rho in a wreath and RMPS in the exergue. The only known specimen (C
5; 832), now at Dumbarton Oaks, was first published in the early eighteenth century, when it
was in the Joseph Foucault collection (Banduri 1718, I1.567), and although its subsequent his-
232 GALLA PLACIDIA
tory in the eighteenth century is unknown, it can be traced in the second half of the nineteenth
century through an impressive series of sales in France.
The only small AE in Placidia’s name are all of Rome and have as type a large cross and a
SALVS REIPVBLICAE legend, usually with RM beneath and/or usually an officina numeral
(LRBC 848, 852, 854, 857). One of officina € is illustrated in MMAG Basel list 217 (xi—x1i.1961,
no. 59). An alleged AE 2 (24 mm) of Aquileia in a Russian collection early in this century, with
SALVS REIPVBLICAE and a Victory inscribing a Chi-Rho on a shield and AMAOQP and a star
in the exergue (Goubastoff 1908), must be dismissed as a forgery. The denomination was excep-
tional at this date, the portrait, wearing a diadem with two instead of three tails, is unlike any of
the empress, and SMAQP had been replaced by the simpler AQP after Maximus and Victor.
IV. Constantinopolitan Solidi
The only later Eastern coins known to have been struck in Placidia’s name after her depar-
ture from Constantinople are VOT XXX MVLTI XXXxX solidi of Theodosius’ issue of 430
(MMAG Basel, sale 36, 15.iv.1968, lot 417) and IMP XXXXII solidi of 442/3 (C 2; MIRB 38;
834). They are extremely rare, the 430 one being unique. Both have as obverse legend GALLA
PLACIDIA AVG. No coins were struck in Placidia’s name by Marcian.
VALENTINIAN III
23 October 425-16 March 455
Caesar from 23 October 424
Colleagues:
Theodosius II (to 28 July 450)
Marcian (from 25 August 450)
Eastern Augustae:
Pulcheria (to July 453)
Eudocia (from 2 January 423)
Western Augustae:
Galla Placidia (to 27 November 450)
Honoria (426?—450?)
Licinia Eudoxia (from 6 August 439)
Consulships: i-ii 425—6; iii 430; iv 435; v 440; vi 445; vii 450; viii 455
Valentinian I1I—his full name, used on some of his coins, was Placidus (not Placidius, as in
some older works) Valentinianus—was the only son of Constantius III and Galla Placidia, so that
he was a member of the Theodosian house only on his mother’s side. He was born on 2 July 419
and brought by his mother to Constantinople in 422 or 423. What followed—his promotion to
the rank of caesar on 23 October 424 by Helion, Theodosius’ trusted master of the offices, on
his return journey to the West and, after John had been overthrown and executed, his further
recognition as emperor at Rome by Helion in Theodosius’ name on 23 October 425, his nomi-
nation as consul by Theodosius II for 425 and 426—has already been described.
Valentinian III was only six years old at his accession and spent the first years of his reign
under his mother’s tutelage. He proved as ineffective a ruler as his grandfather Honorius. Pro-
copius, writing a century later but probably drawing on an account by Valentinian’s contempo-
rary Priscus, describes him as superstitious and effeminate, spoiled in his childhood by his
mother and subsequently a disgraceful philanderer, running after other persons’ wives despite
the exceptional beauty of his own (Bell. Vand. 1.3.10). During his long reign of thirty years (Enss-
lin in RE, Zweite Reihe VIIA, 2 [1948], 2232-59), the dissolution of the Empire in the West
continued unchecked, despite the military and diplomatic skills of his great magister militum Ae-
tius, who was Placidia’s political rival from the first and became the dominant influence at court
in the early 430s. Little was done to prevent the consolidation of Visigothic power in southwest-
ern Gaul, and only parts of the east and north, like Italy itself, remained under imperial control.
North Africa was lost to the Vandals, who under Gaiseric crossed the straits in 429, captured
Carthage in 439, and in 442 forced Valentinian to sign a treaty recognizing their possession of
the central and richest provinces of Byzacena and Proconsularis with part of Numidia. In 451
Attila invaded Gaul, but this greatest threat to the West was defeated by Aetius, who with the
help of the Visigoths and the Burgundians and Franks defeated the huge host of the Huns at
the battle of the Mauriac field near Troyes. The following year Attila invaded Italy but retired
after destroying Aquileia and ravaging the northeast, his further advance being stayed when the
233
234 VALENTINIAN III
diplomacy of Pope Leo I and two senators dispatched from Rome by Valentinian was reinforced
by an outbreak of plague in his army. Two years later, on 21 September 454, Aetius was mur-
dered by Valentinian at an audience on suspicion of aiming at the throne. The emperor was
instigated to this act of folly by Petronius Maximus, a wealthy senator who had had a distin-
guished public career and twice been consul and who now coveted Aetius’ posts. The crime was
avenged on 16 March 455 when Valentinian was stabbed to death by two of Aetius’ former
retainers while exercising on the Campus Martius at Rome. It was widely believed that the killing
was arranged by Petronius Maximus, whose wife Valentinian was said to have seduced, but Ae-
tius was a man who knew how to command loyalty, and it may have been no more than an act
of personal vengeance.
Valentinian’s coinage was struck mainly in his own name, but there were occasional courtesy
issues on behalf of his Eastern colleagues Theodosius II and Marcian and of his mother, Galla
Placidia, as well as on those of his sister Honoria, created augusta in or about 426, and his wife
Licinia Eudoxia, daughter of Theodosius, to whom he had been betrothed as an infant and
married in 437 and whom he created augusta in 439. Their careers and coinages are discussed
in the appropriate sections. Those in the name of Theodosius II (above, pp. 149-51) show that
he respected the requirements of collegiality as little as Honorius had done, for such coins are
confined to the years immediately following his accession; his main issues are without Eastern
equivalents. The date clauses of the emperor's legislation, supplemented by occasional refer-
ences in the narrative sources, enable us to trace his movements in part, but while they show
that initially he mainly resided with his mother at Ravenna and in his last years mainly at Rome,
he occasionally, and probably more often than is documented, moved for short periods from
one to the other. He apparently never visited Gaul and only once, in the winter of 437/8, re-
turned to the East.
Valentinian’s coins were mainly of gold, the mints being Ravenna, Rome, and Milan. The
solidi are dominated by a single new type, showing the emperor holding a long cross and stand-
ing with his right foot on the head of a human-headed serpent. This was modified from an
initial issue showing both Theodosius and Valentinian and was introduced at Ravenna in 426. It
was struck there throughout the reign and occasionally at Rome and Milan, at Rome mainly in
Valentinian’s last years. In the months preceding its introduction, there was a brief flurry of
what may loosely be termed accession coinages, continued throughout 426 at Constantinople,
and during its long existence it was occasionally interrupted by coins of a ceremonial character
struck at Ravenna or Rome. Finally, there is the category of coins struck in Valentinian’s name
by Theodosius and subsequently by Marcian at Constantinople. Other denominations and some
rare coinages of siliquae and AE 4 at Trier have also to be fitted into the pattern.
I. Accession Coinages, 425—6
The way for these was prepared by Theodosius’ consular solidi of 425 on which Valentinian
appears as an uncrowned figure standing beside the seated emperor (370-3), but these do not
bear Valentinian’s name and form no part of his coinage. The same is true of Placidia’s coinage
at Aquileia of the months February—August 425 (825), for although these preceded any inde-
pendent coins of Valentinian, no coins struck in his name at Aquileia are known. (The reading
AQ on an AE 4 in a Dalmatian hoard (Pearce 1934b, 274) is doubtful.) What can be classed as
his accession issues are solidi of the traditional Emperor-spurning-captive type at Ravenna, two-
figure solidi struck at Rome, and two-seated-figures solidi struck at Constantinople. The silver
and bronze coinage of Trier was in some sort an accession issue, but it is more easily dealt with
ACCESSION COINAGES 235
in the context of Valentinian III’s main coinages in these metals.
(1) Ravenna, late summer 425, Emperor-spurning-captive type (C 23; 835).
These coins are very rare, a fact not always realized. The Dumbarton Oaks photofile has
illustrations of only six specimens, struck by no more than four obverse dies, and there were
only two in the Comiso hoard of the early 430s as against 53 of the Emperor-and-serpent type
that followed it. The portraits are quite unlike those of the main Ravennate coinage, and some
of the dies must have been prepared in haste; those used for striking 835 have missed the central
I in Valentinian’s name and the second I in Victoria, so that they read VALENT — NIANVS and
VICTOR — A.
It has usually been assumed that this type ran for several years before being replaced by
that normal for the reign, but the above considerations, coupled with the fact that the main type
follows most easily as a direct development of the Two-figure Rome type which can be dated
with certainty to the winter of 425/6, makes this unlikely. It seems most probable that after John’s.
death, and before Valentinian had himself arrived at Ravenna, the mint there would have started
to prepare new dies, with a quite notional portrait of the emperor, while assuming that the old
type of John would do for the reverse. The coins would have been struck in September 425,
when the emperor was in Ravenna on his way from Aquileia, where he was on 6 August, to
Rome, where he arrived before 23 October.
(2) Rome, October 425. Two emperors standing (C 24-5; illus. in PCR III.1531).
This remarkable coin, of which only three specimens seem to be recorded, was inspired by
Theodosius’ Constantinopolitan issue of the early 420s (359-60) but shows the two co-emperors
in military costume, Valentinian the smaller of the two, each holding a long cross in his right
hand and a globe in his left, with a perfunctorily designed Manus Dei holding a crown above
Valentinian’s head and his cross resting on the human head of a serpent whose coils wander
round Theodosius’ left leg. The victory implied by the design can only be that over the recently
executed John; it is indeed only the subsequent development of the design that justifies our
recognizing it as a serpent, for one’s first impression is that of a rope attached to the severed
head of the usurper. The legend is VICTORIA AVGGG. The coin was the contribution of the
Roman mint to the ceremonies accompanying and following Valentinian’s proclamation as au-
gustus on 23 October 425.
(3) Constantinople, 426. Theodosius and Valentinian were joint consuls for the second time
in 426, and Theodosius celebrated the accession of his younger colleague by striking in his name
all three gold denominations, together with silver siliquae and AE 4. Their “accession” character
justifies their being placed here instead of with the later Constantinopolitan issues in Valentini-
an’s name. The types in each case are those of Theodosius’ regular coins.
The solidi (C 9; MIRB 24; 836-8) show two emperors seated in consular robes, with Val-
entinian the smaller of the two, the legend being SALVS REIPVBLICAE normally followed by
an officina numeral. The semisses (C 14; MJRB 41) have a Victory inscribing XX/XXX on a
shield and the tremisses (C 47; MIRB 27; 839-40) a Victory advancing with wreath and globus
cruciger. Their Eastern origin is shown by their having CONOB as mint-mark and a star in the
field. The absence of PLA(cidus) from the emperor’s name and the unbroken inscriptions gave
rise to much confusion in the past, when they were frequently attributed to Valentinian II.
The siliquae of the same issue in Valentinian’s name are very rare. But there is one in the
British Museum (2.06 g; C—; MIJRB N66; PCR III.1545). It has VOT/XX/MVLI/XXX in a
wreath and CONS beneath. Finally, there are AE 4 having a CONCORDIA AVC inscription
and a victory holding two wreaths, with CON in the exergue (C — ; LRBC 2237). The semisses
236 VALENTINIAN III
and siliquae have sometimes been attributed to 444, the twentieth anniversary of Valentinian’s
own accession, but Constantinopolitan issues in his name at this date seem unlikely.
II. Main Coinages, 425-55
The ordinary Valentinianic solidus has on the reverse a standing emperor in military cos-
tume holding a long cross and a globe surmounted by a Victory crowning him, his foot on the
head of a human-headed serpent (C 19, 21; 841-4, 849-50, 854). The legend is VICTORIA
AVGGG. It was a Ravennate adaptation of the accession coinage of Rome, Theodosius being
eliminated from the design and the image of triumph made more ostentatiously that of the
emperor, who continues indeed to hold a cross but has his own foot and not the sacred object
placed firmly on the monster’s head. The legend is also “normalized.” The type remained a
favorite in the West for the next fifty years, down to the reign of Anthemius (467-72), though
its original significance must by then have been long forgotten, each generation being free to
interpret it as showing the emperor triumphing over whichever enemy happened to be most in
vogue at the moment (above, p. 79).
The coins were struck at Ravenna throughout the reign, but at Rome and Milan intermit-
tently and mainly toward its end.
The Ravenna coins (841—4) remain of the same type almost throughout. Individual speci-
mens could only be roughly dated on the basis of some supposed stylistic development, and no
study of this has so far been done. The only significant variety is that on which a crown appears
above the emperor’s bust (C 21; 844). Normally it has the form of a simple circle, slightly ser-
rated to suggest its jeweled character, but a few specimens show it held by a Manus Dei (e.g.,
Hess-Bank Leu sale 11, 24.11.1959, lot 394). It was a variety much copied in Gaul, the treatment
of the small Victory on the globe becoming more and more linear and the wreath she holds
becoming an open-ended horseshoe instead of a ring. Such coins are common in French hoards
of the third quarter of the fifth century, notably in one of 16 “Ravennate” solidi of Valentinian
that were found in 1969 at Arcay (dép. Cher), 12 out of the 15 that were available for study
having such a crown above the head (Cothenet and Lafaurie 1969).
The origin of these coins has been much discussed. Reinhart (1938, 118) attributed those
with RV, and their derivatives with RA instead of RV, to the Visigoths, a view that Lafaurie (loc.
cit.) originally accepted, but he subsequently argued that they could better be assigned to Aetius
and his successors, since he doubted whether any with a crown were of Ravenna at all (Lafaurie
1973b, 1980b, 1982; followed in Demougeot 1983). A Visigothic origin for the imitations is
preferred in MEC (1.45—6). Most recently Depeyrot (1986) has studied the RV coins in the
context of what he terms the solzdi gaulois of Valentinian III, of which he identifies four groups:
(1) coins with RV and crown; (2) coins with RM and a Z (sometimes read as N) at the end of the
reverse inscription; (3) coins with RV and a conspicuous pellet in the left or right obverse field;
and (4) coins with unbroken obverse legend. A survey of their geographical distribution leads
him to the conclusion that they were all more or less official issues of northern Gaul “en relation
avec les besoins civils et militaires de cette région qui fut le centre des combats de la premiére
moitié du Ve siécle.” This localization seems well established, and one may accept the coins with
these various features as provincial though not official imitations, but it is difficult to believe a
crown would have been locally devised without a Ravenna prototype. Depeyrot’s redating of the
solidi with a crown to early in Valentinian III’s reign, instead of their traditional attribution to
its virtual end, is in any case convincing, for it brings them into an intelligible relationship with
the siliquae of Trier that are also best dated 425-ca. 430 (below, pp. 238-9).
MAIN COINAGES rN
The coins of Rome of the same type as Ravenna but with RM in the field (C 19; 849-50)
can be dated only approximately to the fifteen years 440-55. Valentinian was in Rome in the
spring of 440 (January—March), in the summer of 442 and again in December, apparently for
all of 447-9, and from February 450 almost uninterruptedly till his death. He may also have
been there at other times for which there is no record. A careful study of the stylistic variations
may at some future date allow individual coins to be ascribed to one or other of these occasions.
The fullest study of the imitations which have Z at the end of the reverse legend, and a smooth
back to Valentinian’s head, with no attempt to delineate the hair, is now that in Depeyrot (1986,
118). Reinhart attributed them to the Visigoths (Reinhart 1938, p. 127, no. 24, pl. 3), but De-
peyrot puts them from farther north.
The coins of Milan with MD in the field (C 19; 854) are customarily dated from the last
years of the reign on the assumption that the mint was only reopened in about 452, after the
destruction of Aquileia by Attila and its disappearance from the roster of late Roman mints
(Laffranchi 1953, 717; followed by Ulrich-Bansa 1949, 236—9). The presence of four specimens
in the Comiso hoard of the early 430s shows that this was not the case. We must in fact assume
sporadic minting at Milan at intervals in the course of the reign, and we know too little of
Valentinian III’s occasional absences from Ravenna to assign dates to his possible sojourns at
Milan. Ulrich-Bansa has discussed and illustrated a large selection of the coins (Ulrich-Bansa
1949, 236-9, pl. x. 90-3). They are of very rough design and fabric compared to the much
more finished products of Ravenna and Rome, and some coins with MD are no doubt Germanic
imitations.
Valentinian’s semisses, though not all formally dated, were probably mainly minted for spe-
cial occasions, but since we cannot be sure what these were, the whole series is best included
here. The earliest is one struck in his name by Theodosius in 426, but this has been described
in the category of accession issues. The Western ones are of three types: (a) a Victory inscribing
VOT/X/MVLI/XX on a shield that stands on a column and is steadied by a winged Genius, (b)
a similar coin, but with a Chi-Rho instead of a vota inscription, and (c) a Chi-Rho in a wreath
with around it the inscription SALVS REIPVBLICAE. The first, with RV in the field (C 30;
857), is part of the consular-decennial issue of 435. The second (C — ) exists for both Ravenna
(with RV; illus. in Montagu sale, 997) and Rome (with RM; specimen at Milan). They may have
been struck for ceremonies in 440, but it is impossible to say. The third type (C 48), the last of
the reign and continued by later emperors, belongs to the late 440s and early 450s, and the fact
of its being without specific mint-marks makes it difficult to say whether individual specimens
were struck at Ravenna or at Rome.
The tremisses of Valentinian are much commoner than the semisses and had presumably a
more continuous existence. His Western ones contrast with the Eastern ones struck with his
name in having for type a cross in wreath instead of a Victory, COMOB instead of CONOB and
a star (C 49; 845, 851, 855). The M of COMOB is usually badly formed, so that it is easy to read
it as an N, but M was probably always intended. Any close dating of the coins is impossible in
the present state of our knowledge, and even mint attributions are difficult. A broad, flat wreath
is usually thought to indicate Rome, a large and less tidy one Ravenna—one can make a com-
parison with the wreath on silver coins with RV (e.g., PCR III.1543)—and a rough and straggly
one Milan (cf. Ulrich-Bansa 1949, 239-42; pl. x.94—5), but there is a subjective element in the
matter. The three in the catalogue here have been divided between Ravenna (845), Rome (851),
and Milan (855).
Valentinian III's silver coins of Italy were all struck at Ravenna and Rome, none being
238 VALENTINIAN III
known of Milan, and there seem to have been no multiples. The coins form two main series.
The earlier, struck sometime in the 420s or 430s, has for the siliqua a seated Roma with the
legend VRBS ROMA, the mint-mark being RVPS or RMPS (C 46), and for the half-siliqua the
legend VICTORIA AVCC and a Victory advancing to the left with a wreath and palm, the mint-
mark being RV or RM (C 11). All are rare—there are two half-siliquae here (847—8)—but illus-
trations of a number of both denominations were included in Morrisson and Schwartz's study
of early Vandal silver coinage, for which they provided models (Morrisson and Schwartz 1982).
Also very early, probably an initial issue of 425/6, is a siliqua of Ravenna (RVPS) having as
reverse type a long cross supported by a soldier with a billowing cloak, the legend being GLO-
RIA ROMANORVM. The type is modeled on that of the Cross-and-Victory solidus of Theo-
dosius II's vicennalza, with the star in the upper field as on Placidia’s imitations of this at Ravenna,
and the cloak is an intentional reminiscence of the Victory’s wing. The coin is known only from
a broken specimen here (846; C 2, with the mint-mark misread ANQS; cf. Grierson 1983, with
enlargement). Kent (in NC 1988, 262) regards it as a Gaulish pseudo-Ravennate issue. A coin
with a Victory and long cross has VAV CCC retrograde as legend (Lafaurie 1990). At some date
in the reign there were also issued half-siliquae having as types for Ravenna (RV) a cross in
wreath (C —, but cf. C 59; illus. in Vierordt sale cat. [Schulman 5.iii.1923], lot 2910) or a Chi-
Rho in wreath (C — ; PCR III.1539) and for Rome (RM), a Chi-Rho in wreath (C —; illus. in
same cat., lot 2908, reproduced in Ulrich-Bansa 1949, pl. N.p).
Valentinian’s silver coins of Italy all fall into the category of special issues, but his siliquae of
Trier, though almost equally rare, were presumably intended as contributions to the regular
coinage. They apparently belong to the opening years of the reign, and so to some degree fall
into the category of accession issues. They have an obverse legend without Pla (D N VALEN-
TINIANVS P F AVG), no doubt partly because of their small size but also in part perhaps of
being struck under Eastern influence, and there is a suspended crown above the emperor's head.
The reverse inscription is VIRTVS (normally VRTVS) ROMANORVM and the mint-mark
TRPS. Material on them is collected, with very full discussion, in King (1988, 199-206), to which
should be added Lafaurie (1987) and Blackburn (1988), though these do not supersede Cahn
(1937), which illustrates the types and lists all specimens then known. There are three types:
(1) Roma seated left holding a globe with Victory and spear, with star in left field (C 33-5;
Koblitz 1928, 47, no. 2).
(2) Standing figure of the emperor looking right and holding labarum and globe with Chris-
togram (C 32; Koblitz 1928, 47, no. 1).
(3) Roma seated facing on high throne holding globe and scepter (C — ; Koblitz — ).
Most known specimens of these coins, which weigh ca. l-ca. 1.5 g, come from graves at
Arcy-Sainte-Restitue (Barthélemy 1878; Lafaurie 1964b, 197-8) and Kleinhiiningen (Cahn
1937) and had been pierced for use as ornaments; some are contemporary imitations. For the
first two, there are counterparts in the name of Theodosius II (above, pp. 150-1), and the facing
Roma type is so rare that similar coins in his name may yet turn up. Their issue was accompanied
by AE 4 in the names of both emperors (below, p. 239). Their date is disputed. Cahn (1937, 430)
proposed the late 440s, relating them to Aetius’ attempt at that time to restore imperial authority
in Gaul, and is followed by Lafaurie (1964b, 175-82) and Mitard (1969). King regards all the
coins as imitative, perhaps post-Valentinianic. A late date was thought to receive support from
the presence of the suspended crown, for the solidi on which this also occurs were dated to ca.
450, but they now appear to belong to the beginning of the issue (above, p. 236). This brief
reopening of the mint of Trier has in fact an obvious analogy with the reopening of that of
SPECIAL COINAGES IN THE WEST 239
Aquileia at the time of Valentinian’s accession, and one can well imagine officials in the lower
Rhineland wishing to demonstrate their loyalty to the new emperor by starting to coin on his
behalf. An early date would also explain the star in the field, an Eastern feature, and the minting
of coins in the name of Theodosius, a phenomenon much less likely in the 440s. This early date
for the coins with the star—it is also proposed in PCR (III.1530)—seems therefore more likely,
with the others following between 425 and ca. 430.
Valentinian III’s bronze coinage, apart from the 426 issue of Constantinople, some later
Eastern coins of Cyzicus, still to be dealt with, and a tiny issue of AE 4 from Trier, is limited to
the mint of Rome and consists entirely of the AE 4 that are now best called nummi. They are of
small module (ca. 20 mm) and are for the most part very ill-struck, with the emperor’s name
reduced to a few letters (e.g., DNVAL .. .), so that the identification of types and the readings
of mint-marks and inscriptions are usually in some measure doubtful. There are at least ten
types, but since the condition of the coins is usually so poor that dealers and collectors rarely
trouble with them, and they seldom come on the market, only two are represented here. One
type is formally dated to 444 by having VOT/XX in a wreath (LRBC 856; 853), and another
(LRBC 849-51, 853, 855, 858—9) has VOT PVB but it is not clear to which occasion the inscrip-
tion belongs (435?). Most of the others can be placed early or late in the reign by consideration
of their types or mint-marks, though not always with certainty; an older type might always be
revived at some later date. The best account is in Kent's description of the El-Djem hoard from
Tunisia (Kent 1988a).
The commonest types involve a Victory, usually alone and advancing or facing left, some-
times with a palm and wreath and having a cross in the field, sometimes holding a globe and
spear—this has been identified with Virtus—sometimes dragging a captive, and once there are
two Victories meeting and holding a wreath between them. The VOT PVB coins have for type
a camp gate (852), for which there is the alternative legend CAS — TRA (LRBC 866). Yet other
types are a cross or VOT/XX in a wreath (LRBC 856; Garnier 1965, wrongly as unpublished).
The normal mint-mark is RM, the letters being sometimes separated by an officina initial, but
the latter can also be placed in the left or right field or above the type. A list of types and mint-
marks is given in LRBC (839-68, with notes on p. 106), but it may not be complete or altogether
accurate, for it is difficult to find coins on which type, legend, and mint-mark are all three legible
and justify an assured description. For this reason it is not reproduced here. The main mid- or
late fifth-century coin hoards in which specimens of Valentinian III’s nummi are adequately
described are few—Minturno (Newell 1933), Dalmatia (Pearce 1934b), “Yale” (Adelson and Kus-
tas 1960), Zacha (Adelson and Kustas 1964), El-Djem (Kent 1988a)—but three of these are from
Eastern provinces of the Empire and their Valentinianic content is only marginal.
There is, finally, a very rare AE 4 of Trier, with mint-mark TR, which like the siliquae just
described can be dated to the late 420s (C — ; Koblitz 1928 — ; LRBC 177). The obverse has the
profile bust with a suspended crown and the reverse has VRTVS (sic) ROMANORVM, with a
standing figure of the emperor holding spear and shield. In contrast to the coinage of Rome, it
exists also for Theodosius II (above, p. 151).
III. Special Coinages in the West
Coinage of 435
(a) Consular solidus of Ravenna having on the obverse a consular bust facing left holding a
mappa and cross-scepter, with on the reverse an enthroned consular figure, the legend being
VOT X MVLT XX with RV in the field (C 41; illus. in the Montagu sale cat., 20.iv.96, lot 998).
240 VALENTINIAN III
Very rare; only four specimens in the Dumbarton Oaks photofile.
(b) Same type, but with RM in the field (C 41; 856).
(c) Semisses with Victory inscribing VOT/X/MVLI/XX on a shield, RV in the field (C 30;
857).
Coinages of 440, 445, or 450
(a) Consular solidus of Rome with seated consul as before, but legend VICTORIA AVGGG
(C 26; unicum in the Amécourt sale cat., lot 807, now in the Museo Nazionale at Rome).
(b) As last, but the bust is smaller and on both obverse and reverse the consul holds a
consular scipio (eagle-topped scepter) instead of a cross (C — ).
It does not seem possible to say to which of Valentinian’s consulships these coins belong.
Coinages of 455
Valentinian’s eighth consulship would have opened on | January 455, and he was murdered
on 16 March, so there was little time available for appropriate coinages. But the celebrations
themselves produced one of the most elaborately designed solidi of the reign, coins having the
usual consular obverse but on the reverse the standing figure of Valentinian, in consular robes
and holding a cross-scepter, either raising a kneeling woman, presumably symbolizing the Em-
pire, or distributing largess to her, the details not being always clear (C 44; 858; largess apparent
in the enlargement in Kent 1978, fig. 755). The coin has RM in the field, and, in view of Valen-
tinian’s murder two months later, there is an ironical touch about the inscription, VOT XXX
MVLT XXXxX. Banduri in the early eighteenth century knew medallions of the same type.
This was followed by another coin having the same legend but accompanying the main
reverse type of the reign, while the obverse, instead of a profile bust, has a facing one of the
emperor in military costume, helmeted, holding a spear across his body and a small shield in-
scribed with a Chi-Rho (C 45; 859). The specimen at Dumbarton Oaks, acquired by Peirce at
the Trau sale in 1935 (lot 4678), may be identical with that described by Cohen as being in the
stock of the dealer Rollin, in which case the coin would be unique. Its existence suggests that in
455 Valentinian or his moneyers were preparing to abandon the Western profile bust as the
normal obverse type and adopt a facing military one, even if in its details this differed from
those of the three-quarter facing bust of Constantinople.
IV. Later Eastern Issues
Coins were only very occasionally struck in Valentinian’s name at Constantinople after the
issue of 426. Only one of the types employed is in any way remarkable, the others being normal
ones of Theodosius but minted in Valentinian’s name. They are as follows:
Coins of 430
VOT XXX MVLT XXXxX, with Constantinopolis seated (C 42; MIRB 26; 860-1). Various
officinae are recorded, the reverse dies being simply those of Theodosius’ coins.
Coinage of 442/3
These are the issue with IMP XXXXII COS XVII. P.P. and a seated Constantinopolis (C 4;
MIRB 34; 862). They made part of the great family coinage of the Theodosian house involving
all those to whom imperial status had been accorded (above, p. 146). The mint-mark is normally
LATER EASTERN COINS 241
COMOB, coins with CONOB having the N often reversed.
Coinage of 450-55
Solidi with VICTORIA AVCCC and Victory holding long cross (C 17; 863-4), normally
without officina numeral and so probably struck within a few months of Marcian’s accession on
25 August 450. The coins are dated by the accompanying ones of Marcian, for coins of the same
type struck under Theodosius had a different legend and the star was between the Victory’s
head and the top of the cross instead of in the right field. Their minting by Marcian would have
underlined his acceptance by his Western colleague. The type, with Valentinian’s name blun-
dered but still recognizable, was copied by the Visigoths in Gaul for an issue of tremisses instead
of solidi (cf. MEC 1.46 and no. 173).
Other coinages
At Cyzicus, on two occasions in the reign, AE 4 were struck in the name of Valentinian III
of two types, one with CONCOR — DIAAVC and a facing Victory (LRBC 2603) and the other
with a cross in wreath (LRBC 2606; 865). Why this single mint should have elected to strike coins
in Valentinian’s name as well as in that of Theodosius is hard to see. The authors of LRBC also
record, though doubtfully, AE 2 coins of Constantinople with CONCORDIA AGV (sic) and two
standing emperors corresponding to the abnormal issue of Theodosius of the same type (LRBC
2232, and cf. p. 107; 435), but the reading of the emperor's name is noted as uncertain, and the
minting of such coins on behalf of Valentinian seems unlikely.
JUSTA GRATA HONORIA
Sister of Valentinian III
Augusta 426?—450?
Honoria, the only daughter of Constantius III and Galla Placidia, was born in 417 or 418
and was thus a year or so older than her brother Valentinian III. Most of the details of her life
are uncertain (Bury 1919). She shared her mother’s exile at Constantinople in 422-5, but re-
turned with her and subsequently lived permanently in the West. She was probably not created
augusta at Theodosius’ behest, at the same time as her brother was crowned in October 425,
since the coinage shows she was never recognized in the East. But her elevation cannot have
been long delayed, for she is styled augusta in an inscription recording the thanks of Placidia
and her children for being saved from shipwreck, and the most likely occasion for this was their
journey to Italy in 425 (Bury 1923, I.262 note 3).
Of Honoria’s early life we know virtually nothing, and it was not till 449 that she played a
brief and startling role in public affairs. A love affair with a certain Eugenius, manager of her
estates, came to light and was believed to have political overtones, with her plotting to overthrow
her brother and seize power for herself. Eugenius was executed and Honoria betrothed, per-
haps even married, to an elderly senator, Herculanus, who could be trusted to keep her political
ambitions in check. She was presumably at the same time deprived of her imperial title. She
retaliated by sending a secret appeal for help to Attila, who pretended to construe it as a pro-
posal and demanded her hand in marriage with half the Empire as a dowry. Valentinian is said
to have been restrained only by Placidia from ordering his sister's execution. Her subsequent
fate is unknown, though since Herculanus was consul in 452, it is clear that he at least remained
in favor at court.
The coins struck in Honoria’s name are virtually all of Ravenna. The legends of most of
them, Bono Reipublicae or Salus Reipublicae, suggest an accession issue of ca. 426—there were
specimens in the Comiso hoard of ca. 430/5 and the Trabki Mate hoard of ca. 435—and the rare
solidi with VOT XX, if the formula is not simply an immobilization, should have been minted
prior to 430. Her name is given virtually in full, [VST GRAT HONORIA, on all denominations.
The main series of solidi is of the usual type (C 1; 866), but has the unusual reverse legend
BONO REIPVBLICAE, a shortened version of Bono Reipublicae nata, “born for the good of the
commonweal,” an acclamation formula occasionally used on coins in the preceding century
(Kent 1978, note to no. 714). Some specimens have four instead of three tails to the diadem,
and a forgery by Becker displays the same feature (Hill 1924, no. 271), but as it occurs on several
dies, including that of the specimen here, it is not by itself a mark of unauthenticity. The coins
are also unusual, for products of a Western mint, in having a star in the upper reverse field, but
this results from their having been modeled on a solidus of Placidia which had brought this
feature from Constantinople.
The other type of solidus (C 4) is the counterpart to Placidia’s Ravenna issue with VOT XX
MVLT XXX as reverse legend. Cohen locates a specimen in the British Museum, but apparently
242
COINAGE OF HONORIA 243,
in error, though the type may well exist.
The semisses are all of the same type as that of Placidia, with a Chi-Rho in a wreath and the
legend SALVS REIPVBLICAE (C 2; 867). The three specimens in the Dumbarton Oaks pho-
tofile all share the same dies. The tremisses (C 5; 868-9) are also closely die-linked between
themselves. No silver coins of Honoria seem to be known.
An AE 4 with a cross on the reverse that came to light in the Carthage excavations must
belong to Honoria, though only ... THO... (for GRAT HONOR) in the obverse inscription
was visible (Metcalf 1981la). Another specimen recorded by Cohen (C 3; LRBC — ) was said to
have a reverse inscription SALV .. . IE, with RSM in the exergue.
LICINIA EUDOXIA
Wife of Valentinian III
Augusta 6 August 439-ca. 490
Licinia Eudoxia was born to Theodosius II and Eudocia in 422 and betrothed to Valentinian
III in 424, when he was five years old and she was two. They were married thirteen years later
at Constantinople, on 29 October 437, and she was created augusta at Ravenna on 6 August 439
after the birth of her elder daughter, Eudocia. After her husband’s murder, she was briefly
married to the new emperor, Maximus, and subsequently carried off with her children to Africa
by Gaiseric, whom popular rumor alleged she had summoned to her aid. Marcian made some
half-hearted efforts to secure her release, but Leo was more insistent, or at least more successful.
She returned to Constantinople in the early 460s and lived there till her death, probably some
time before 493, though no chronicler records the date or where she was buried. Her coins bear
out Procopius’ reference to her exceptional beauty, but of all the prominent members of her
family, she was the one who made the least impact on contemporaries. Apart from her supposed
appeal to Gaiseric, an improbable story which has found some defenders (Gitti 1925), we are
told nothing about her in either praise or blame, almost the sole positive pieces of information
being that in 455 she would have preferred Majorian as Valentinian’s successor and did not wish
to marry Maximus.
Coins were struck in Eudoxia’s name by Valentinian III in the West and by Theodosius II
and Marcian in the East. The Western ones have never presented problems, but the Eastern
ones, on which her name Licinia does not appear, were formerly not recognized as hers but
attributed either to her grandmother Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius, or, ignoring the difference in
spelling, to her mother Eudocia. There is consequently a substantial literature on the coinage
going back to de Salis (1867), though it is not now necessary to go behind two studies by Laf-
franchi (1931) and Ulrich-Bansa (1935), to which Boyce (1954) added little of value. Laurent,
in publishing a lead seal of Licinia Eudoxia found at Carthage, manages several confusions
between the coins of the various Eudoxias, despite his meticulous citation of the explanatory
literature (Laurent 1958).
I. Western Coinages
The Italian solidi of Eudoxia are of two types, one dated VOT XXX and so of 454/5, the
second undated but attributable with some confidence to 439. A third type, with a profile bust
on the obverse and a long cross and Victory on the reverse, with RV in the field and the legend
BONO REIPVBLICAE, is of doubtful authenticity. Although the specimen in the Brera was
published by Laffranchi (1931) and accepted by him with some hesitation, the subsequent dis-
covery of another specimen in the Udine collection, coupled with anomalies in the design—four
instead of three tails to the empress’ diadem and a crown unlike any other of the period—
appear to condemn it as a forgery of Cigoi (Brunetti 1966, no. 392).
The coins attributable to 439 are the best known of Eudoxia’s solidi (C 1; 870) and among
the most beautiful to be struck of any Roman empress. They have on the obverse the facing bust
244
COINAGE OF LICINIA EUDOXIA 245
of the empress, wearing necklace and earrings and an elaborate crown having six pinnacles and
a central cross and with long pendilia ( prependulia) hanging to the level of her shoulders, a crown
whose features remained in most respects unchanged and were described many centuries later
by Anna Comnena (cf. DOC II.83—4; III.130). The reverse shows the empress seated on a high-
backed throne holding a globus cruciger and a cross-scepter. The legend is SALVS REIPVBLI-
CAE. The great majority of known specimens are of the Ravenna mint, but there is one, in the
British Museum, of Rome (PCR III.1535). The issue has sometimes been dated 454/5, but there
is another coin of this date, and it is more likely to have been struck earlier, probably in connec-
tion with Eudoxia’s acquisition of the title of augusta in August 439. Valentinian was then in
Ravenna and probably remained there several months before going to Rome for the celebrations
of his fifth consulship in January 440.
The other solidus is that of 454/5, with a facing bust differing only in details from the earlier
one and having on the reverse the standing figures of Eudoxia and Valentinian, with RM in the
field and VOT XXX MVLT XXXxX as inscription (C 2; illus. in Montagu sale cat., no. 1102).
The design of the reverse was evidently intended to recall that of the parallel issue of Valentinian
(858) with the same inscription but showing the emperor dispensing largess to a female figure
on the left.
Western fractional coins of Eudoxia seem to be limited to a tremissis (D N ELIA EVDOXIA
P F AVG) with a cross in wreath and COMOB beneath (C — ; 871), which the style of the bust
and wreath indicates is more likely to be of Ravenna than Rome, and half-siliquae with Chi-Rho
in a wreath and RV beneath (S I.122, no. 11, pl. v1.3, with RV off flan), of which several speci-
mens—at least three are known—are illustrated in Ulrich-Bansa’s article (1935). They are prob-
ably of the same date as the main series of solidi. The silver coin with CON in Ulrich-Bansa’s
collection which he attributed to Licinia Eudoxia must be one of the wife of Arcadius (above, p.
134).
II. Eastern Coinages
The coins struck in Eudoxia’s name in the East are characterized by the legend AEL
EVDOXIA AVG, without Licinia, and can normally be distinguished from those of her grand-
mother by their types and by the presence of a star in the field. Only the first of Licinia Eudoxia’s
coins involved a specially designed reverse type; the others required no more than obverse dies
having her name and bust, the reverse dies being supplied from the current issues of Theodos-
ius and Marcian. The coins are limited to solidi and tremisses, both having as obverse type a
profile bust with a Manus Dei and crown on the solidi. The coins are as follows:
Solidus of 439
This coin (S 1.110, no. 2 = T “Arcadius” 135; MIRB 9; enlarged illus. in Kent 1978, fig.
753), known only from a unicum at Paris, has on the reverse a large Chi-Rho with the legend
SALVS ORIENTIS FELICITAS OCCIDENTIS and CONOB in the exergue. It may have been
struck on the occasion of the marriage of Eudoxia and Valentinian in October 437, the bride
being regarded as the Well-Being of the East and the Good Fortune of the West, thus making it
a pendant to the coins struck in Theodosius’ name on the happy occasion. But it is more likely
that it dates from August or September 439, representing Theodosius’ reaction not so much to
Eudoxia’s promotion to the rank of augusta as the news of the birth of his first grandchild, called
Eudocia after his wife. It would thus be an Eastern counterpart to the special Western coinages.
assigned above to 439. The absence of a star in the reverse field presumably reflects the excep-
246 LICINIA EUDOXIA
tional nature of the issue, though the design is so crowded that there would have been little
space for one.
space for one.
Solidi of 439/40
These coins (M/RB 30; several specimens known) have the VOT XXX MVLT XXXxX re-
verse of Theodosius II’s issue of 430 but cannot be as early as this, since Eudoxia was not then
augusta. Presumably they followed on the ceremonial Salus Orientis type but were intended for
regular use, since the Theodosian formula remained valid till 440.
Solidi (and tremisses?) of 442/3
Theodosius’ IMP XXXXII solidus issue of 442/3 included Eudoxia (R 205; PCR III.1546;
872), as it did Valentinian and Placidia. Officina numerals are absent, and the end of the reverse
legend is sometimes punctuated (XVII.P.P.).
The fairly common Constantinopolitan tremisses (with CONOB*) struck in Eudoxia’s
name (T 144, as Eudoxia I; M/RB 51; 873) were probably also struck on this occasion, the mint
instruction for the inclusion of Eudoxia’s name in the minting of the solidi being taken to cover
tremisses as well. Some of them, however, may belong to the next coinage.
Solidi of 450
These are the solidi having on the reverse VICTORIA AVCCC and a Victory with long
cross, with the star in the right field as under Marcian (T “Arcadius” 141, as Eudoxia I). Al-
though the coinage can in theory be dated 450—5, it is more likely that it simply dates from 450,
the order for a token issue in the names of the Western rulers having been issued on Marcian’s
accession.
It was argued by Ulrich-Bansa (1935, 28-9) that the bronze nummi of Leo having as reverse
type an empress holding a scepter across her body, with the letters b E in the field, were struck
to celebrate the return of Eudoxia from her Vandal captivity in 462 or 463, the letters being
interpreted basilissa Eudoxia. Several scholars have found this interpretation attractive (e.g.,
Adelson and Kustas 1960, 184 note 68; 1962, 77 note 45), but Laurent pointed out that in the
fifth century one would not expect a Greek title on a coin and that basilissa was not then normally
used of the empress and certainly not reserved to her; any title other than augusta is hardly
conceivable (Laurent 1958, 128-30). There can in fact be little doubt that the letters are the first
two of Verina’s name in Greek, and that it was in her honor that the coins were minted (above,
pp. 164, 170).
PETRONIUS MAXIMUS
17 March—31 May 455
Petronius Maximus, the murderer of Valentinian III (above, p. 234), was an enormously
wealthy senator who had twice been consul and had held a succession of distinguished public
offices in the last years of Honorius and under Valentinian III. The latter’s death brought to an
end the Theodosian line in the West without any provision having been made for the succession.
The most suitable candidate was Majorian, a competent soldier who was to become emperor
later and had the good wishes of Licinia Eudoxia, but he had no desire for the post, and in the
circumstances Maximus’ wealth carried the day. He was elected emperor on 17 March, the day
after Valentinian’s murder, and to strengthen his position he forced Eudoxia to marry him. Her
daughter Eudocia was likewise compelled to marry his son Palladius, whom he created caesar.
Maximus’ reign lasted barely two and a half months. Eudoxia is said to have appealed for
help to Gaiseric, to whose son Eudocia was already betrothed, and whether or not the story was
true, the opportunity of attacking Rome at a moment of political turmoil was too good to be
missed by the Vandal king. On the news of Gaiseric’s approach, Maximus attempted flight and
was killed by an angry member of the crowd (31 May). Three days later Gaiseric entered Rome
and began its systematic pillage. When he returned to Africa two weeks later he brought with
him Eudoxia and her two daughters, Eudocia and Placidia, the first of whom was in due course
married to his son Huneric.
Maximus’ coins consist almost entirely of solidi—no tremisses are known—of the mint of
Rome (C 1; 874; cf. Ulrich-Bansa 1949, 243-4; Lacam 1983, 59-111, with detailed discussion
of the dies and presumed phases of minting). They carry on the main type of Valentinian’s reign
and utilize the emperor’s full name, partly perhaps to simplify its recutting over the PLA VAL-
ENTINIANVS on dies of his predecessor, as Lacam’s illustrations make it clear was initially
done. The coins have survived in unexpectedly large numbers for a reign of only seventy-five
days, but a working mint was available, Maximus’ wealth was enormous and his obligations press-
ing, and thousands of the hastily struck coins must have been concealed at the time of the Vandal
occupation and never recovered.
There is also in the British Museum a unique solidus of Ravenna with RV (Lacam 1983,
80—6), once again struck with a re-engraved die of Valentinian. There is no reason to doubt its
authenticity, and it is welcome proof of Maximus’ recognition at Ravenna. One must on the other
hand regard with skepticism Lacam’s interpretation (1983, 86-100) of an ill-formed terminal N
or Z to the reverse inscriptions of some barbarous solidi struck in Valentinian’s name as a partial
monogram of Maximus.
247
AVITUS
9 July 455-17 October 456
Deposed; died 456/7 as bishop of Piacenza
The next emperor, Eparchius Avitus, was a Gallo-Roman of senatorial family from the
Auvergne who had had a distinguished career in Gaul, holding in turn several of the great
offices and serving with distinction under Aetius. He even enjoyed the confidence of the Visi-
gothic court at Toulouse, where he managed to add the study of Latin verse to the school cur-
riculum of the youthful Theoderic II. Petronius Maximus appointed him magister utriusque
militiae and sent him as envoy to Theoderic’s court, and it was while he was there in June 455
that the news arrived of Maximus’ death. Theoderic urged him to take the crown himself, which
he did on 9 or 10 July, his action being ratified in August by an assembly of Gallo-Roman no-
tables at Beaucaire. He was invested with the imperial insignia at Arles, entered Italy to establish
his position in September, assumed the consulship the following January, and was in due course
recognized by Marcian.
Only in Italy was Avitus unpopular, being regarded by the senatorial aristocracy as a Gallo-
Roman provincial, and it was in Italy that he made the mistake of promoting Ricimer, an able
soldier who was related to both the Visigothic and Suevic royal houses, to the rank of magister
militum as a reward for his services in defeating a Vandal attack on Sicily. Ricimer, strong-minded
and suspicious, was to dominate Western affairs for the next two decades, making and unmaking
emperors at his pleasure. His first victim was Avitus himself. In the summer of 456, the emperor
was compelled to leave Rome as the result of his failure to cope with local food shortages. Rici-
mer, in alliance with the future emperor Majorian, revolted, and defeated and captured Avitus.
His life was spared, but he was tonsured and made bishop of Piacenza, the see happening at the
moment to be vacant. He died shortly afterward, apparently while on a pilgrimage to a local
shrine in his homeland, and was buried at Brioude.
Avitus’ coins have been studied by Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 244—50) and at greater length, with
a detailed commentary on style and mints, by Lacam (1983, 153-220). Their find spots have
been listed by Lafaurie (1984, 152-5) in the context of his reconstruction of a hoard containing
at least six of Avitus’ solidi that was found at Combertault (dép. Céte-d’Or) in 1803. The bulk
of the solidi were struck at Arles, where the mint was reopened with the help of workmen from
Ravenna, as is shown by the style of the coins it issued (Ulrich-Bansa 1949, 247). The solidus
type (C 5; 875) revived that of Honorius showing the emperor spurning a captive, which was
probably more familiar in Gaul than that showing the emperor with his foot on a human-headed
serpent, but the emperor holds a long cross instead of a standard, this detail being borrowed
from the latter coin. The bust, emphasizing the emperor's receding chin, marks an attempt at
characterized portraiture, especially since he is at first shown without a beard and subsequently
with a very short one. The same type was struck at Milan, the two known specimens of which
(UB pl. x.96-—7; Lacam pl. 51), one with AVC instead of AVCCC, come from a hoard found in
1856 at some unidentified locality in the kingdom of Naples (ASFN 10 [1886], 139-40). Of
Rome there is a unicum in the British Museum (UB pl. L/m; Lacam pl. 42) that differs from the
248
COINAGE OF AVITUS 249
Arles and Milan issues in showing the emperor with a standard instead of a cross and with
PFAVC instead of PERPFAVC in the legend. The coins were probably minted during Avitus’
first visit to Italy, in the autumn and winter of 455/6, rather than on his subsequent stay in the
summer of 456 when he was desperately short of money.
The bulk of Avitus’ tremisses, with a cross in a wreath and COMOB beneath, are rare and
very uniform in style (UB pl. x.98-101; Lacam pl. 54—5). Ulrich-Bansa (249), followed in the
main by Lacam (209-20), attributed them to Milan, but it is more reasonable to suppose that
like the solidi they were struck at Arles. Lacam (pl. 53) illustrates several others of different
styles. One, which is probably authentic, was attributed by Ulrich-Bansa (248 note 65) to Rome,
since it has the same P F AVC legend as the solidus of this mint. The two that Lacam gives to
Ravenna do not inspire confidence. A further coin in the Bibliothéque Nationale with the legend
ending NC (for AVC) and a much rougher wreath, which both Ulrich-Bansa and Lacam regard
as suspect, is certainly false, for the type of wreath and the formula NC are characteristic of
coins of Julius Nepos (cf. 955), three decades later, and there is at Dumbarton Oaks a cast copper
forgery (876) from the same reverse “die” as the Bibliothéque Nationale specimen. A tremissis
formerly in the Montagu collection (no. 1008), with a cross above the emperor's head and a
thick, broad wreath very handsomely designed, seems also to be a forgery, for a coin of Nepos
with an identical reverse (Montagu no. 1030; another at Milan) has the same cross above the
emperor's head. Lacam regards it as Visigothic.
A silver coin with a seated Roma and the legend VRBIS ROMA (sic) is listed by Cohen (no.
9, from the Moustier sale, lot 3871), but its present whereabouts is unknown. It may have been
authentic, since Avitus had revived an old type for his solidus, but no mint-mark is recorded—
it may have been off flan—and we cannot therefore say where it was struck. Another silver coin
with the inscription VANIVIT AVC, which was found at Chelles and attributed to Avitus in
1875, is more probably one of the lightweight barbarous argentei minuti of the period (Lafaurie
1984, 153-4).
Whether there are any nummi of Avitus is doubtful. Cohen lists several types, but the only
ones with full legends are reconstructions of the kind affected by seventeenth- and eighteenth-
century scholars and those of the others too fragmentary to justify their attribution to any par-
ticular emperor. Ulrich-Bansa would accept some of the “Victory” types as of Avitus. The Lipari
hoard of 1910 contained a nummus doubtfully assigned to the emperor (Orsi 1910, 357), but
no description is given of the coin.
MAJORIAN
1 April 457-2 August 461, deposed; executed 7 August 461
Julius Valerius Majorian owed his name to his maternal grandfather, who had been magister
militum in Illyricum in the 370s. He had himself served with distinction under Aetius, and in
455 he was considered a possible successor to Valentinian III. Presumably, when he and Ricimer
deposed Avitus in October 456, it was intended that he should succeed him, but according to
Sidonius Apollinaris, who knew him personally, he was reluctant to assume the burden, and an
interregnum of six months followed during which he and Ricimer were in fact masters of the
West but the emperors were nominally Marcian and, after January 457, Leo. Even after he had
been proclaimed emperor by the army outside Rome on | April 457, he continued to call himself
no more than magister militum, and he was not proclaimed at Ravenna until 28 December 457.
Just as Avitus had not been acceptable in Italy, so Majorian was not acceptable in Gaul. In
458 he led an army of German mercenaries into the Rhéne valley, made himself master of Lyon,
which had accepted a Burgundian garrison, and having defeated the Visigoths outside Aries,
he compelled them to come to terms. But his Gallic successes in 458/9 were followed by misfor-
tunes in Spain in 460/1. Two naval expeditions planned against Gaiseric met with disaster, and
he was forced to return to Italy with no accomplishments to his credit. Such successes as he had
had, however, aroused the suspicions of Ricimer. Majorian, who had deserved better things, was
seized by treachery at Tortona on 2 August, deposed, and beheaded five days later.
Majorian’s coinage is analyzed by Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 263-9) and in greater detail by La-
cam (1983, 221-331). The solidi, struck on a considerable scale at the mints of Ravenna, Aries,
and Milan—there are none of Rome—all have mint-marks, but the attribution of the tremisses
presents problems. No semisses are known, and the nummi were minted anomalously at Ra-
venna and Milan as well as at Rome, usually the only Italian mint for this metal. The solidi are
of three types: (1) extremely rare ones with the customary profile bust and emperor/serpent
reverse, struck at Ravenna and Milan and presumably in 457; (2) equally rare consular coins
known only for Ravenna and attributable to January 458; and (3) relatively common ones, struck
over the whole period 457-61, with a newly designed profile bust showing the emperor he!-
meted and holding a spear and a shield decorated with a Chi-Rho. Most of the tremisses have
the newly designed bust, but at two mints the old profile bust must have been continued
throughout the reign, for the coins are too common to be limited to 457. The emperor is nor-
mally styled IVLIVS (or IVL) MAIORIANVS in full, followed by P F AVC, but PE AVC also
occurs and the inscription is broken in a number of different ways (Lacam 1983, 246-7).
I. Solidi
Ravenna
(1) The solidus with a normal profile bust, overlooked by Lacam, is known only in a unique
specimen in the former Oman collection and illustrated in the sale catalogue (Christie,
12.xi.1968, lot 351).
250
GOLD COINS OF MAJORIAN 251
(2) The consular solidus (C 12; Lacam 234—44) has on the obverse a facing bust of the
emperor wearing a crown and consular robes and holding mappa and cross-scepter. The reverse
shows the two seated figures of Anthemius and Leo in consular robes and holding the same
insignia, the legend being an unimaginative VOTIS MVLTIS. The use of two figures contrasts
with the single seated figure of Leo’s own consular coins, but the differing obverses confirm that
the two issues were designed independently of each other. The exact date of the issue is dis-
puted, since our information on the relations between Leo and Majorian is fragmentary and
contradictory, but January 458 is the most likely date. Lacam lists only three specimens of the
coin, two in the British Museum and the third at Turin, but there is a fourth at Berlin.
(3) The third and main class of the reign (C 1: 877) has the redesigned bust characteristic
of Majorian’s coinage and presumably reflecting, in the enhancement of its military elements,
the emperor's own ambitions and program. The bust goes back to that of the two rare Ravennate
issues of Honorius (742, 743), conflating the profile helmeted head of one with the spear and
shield of the other. The diadem on the helmet is usually a pearl one, but a rosette one also
occurs. The normal legend uses P F AVC, not PE AVC. Majorian also minted at Ravenna in the
name of Leo, the coins being dateable to Majorian’s reign by the close resemblance of the bust
to that of his own solidi (Lacam 287-90).
Arles
No solidi of Classes 1 or 2 are known, but those of Class 3 (C 1; 884) are the commonest of
the reign, evidently being minted during the emperor’s long sojourn in Gaul. The diadem is
often a rosette one, or takes the form of a broad band decorated with circles and pellets. An
interesting variant (C 1, illus.), known in only two specimens, has the COMOB in the exergue
followed by a star, though the precise occasion of its issue—perhaps the consulship of 458—is
unknown. The coin without star was much imitated by the Visigoths, and no clear distinction
can be made between copies and originals.
Milan
These solidi, much rarer than those of Arles and Ravenna, are mainly of Class 3, but there
is in Paris a single specimen of Class 1 (UB pl. x1.104; Lacam pl. 60), the obverse die being a
recut one of Valentinian III. Class 3 begins by using the formula PE and later replaces it by PF
(880-1; cf. Lacam pl. 61).
II. ‘Tremisses
The mints of Majorian’s tremisses can be distinguished in part by type, but in the case of
the Italian ones only by style (Lacam 290-313). Those of Arles are distinct from the others as
being the only ones to use the new form of armored bust, while the wreath is unusually thick
and neatly designed (885). The Italian coins all have the traditional type of bust, with coins of
Rome having a narrow wreath neatly designed and usually well separated from the central cross
and with a broad and elaborately designed base (886). The coins of Ravenna and Milan (882),
with rougher and untidier wreaths, are hard to separate from each other, the differences be-
tween them not being clear even with the help of Lacam’s plates, but those of Milan can in part
be classed by frequent die-links between them.
252 MAJORIAN
III. Half-Siliquae
Two types of half-siliqua are known, both having as obverse type a helmeted bust right, with
spear. One (C 13, illus.), in Paris (0.92 g), has on the reverse VOTIS MVLTIS and a standing
figure facing with spear and shield. The combination of legend and type is incongruous, but
VOTIS MVLTIS also occurs on a solidus. The other coin, of which two specimens are known,
one at Berlin (ex Dressel; 1.16 g) and the other in the former Mazzini collection (Mazzini 1957—
8, pl. xxiv), has VICTORIA AVGG and a Victory standing left with cross, the Berlin specimen
having a legible monogram (RV). The authenticity of the second class is confirmed by the exis-
tence of a group of crude imitations, with reasonably correct obverse legends but the reverse
one deformed into VOT AVCC or variant and two stars in the exergue (C 8-10; Cahn 1937,
430-4; King 1988, 207-8). The find spots of four of them—one is from a child’s grave at
Kleinhiiningen—point to a place of origin somewhere in eastern Gaul, but to which Germanic
people they should be attributed (Burgundians?) is uncertain.
IV. AE 4
This denomination was struck under Majorian at Milan, Ravenna, and Rome. The Milan
issue is altogether exceptional, for the mint was not a moneta publica, and this coinage, apart
from an uncertain specimen of Nepos, is the only bronze it is known to have issued. The coins
have on the reverse VICTORIA AVCCC and a Victory standing left holding wreath and palm,
with MD in the exergue (LRBC 581-4; illus. UB pl. x1.106-—7; PCR III.1551; 883). There are
Ravenna coins of the same type with RV (LRBC 586; 878), together with ones having the same
legend but showing the emperor suppressing a captive and holding a labarum (LRBC — ; 879).
The only recorded Rome coins, with RM, are of the same type as the last (LRBC 869, but ending
AVC).
The coins of all three mints are larger and substantially heavier than the contemporary
nummi of Leo I and indeed heavier than any Western bronze coins had been since the reign of
Honorius. The Milan and Ravenna coins here weigh 2.61 g and 1.47 g respectively, the latter
being chipped, and Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 268 note 33) records the weights of 12 specimens from
the various mints varying between 1.37 g and 2.42 g, the average being 1.85 g. Lacam (1988,
220) has suggested that these unusually high weights are to be explained by Ricimer’s need for
better coin to offer Gundobald’s mercenaries when preparing for his campaign against the Van-
dals, but it is difficult to imagine any troops being satisfied with such miserable scraps of metal.
SEVERUS III
19 November 461—14 November 465
Libius Severus, as he is termed on his coins and in two inscriptions, is one of the obscurest
of Roman emperors. Nothing is known of his family, save that it came from Lucania, or of his
previous career. He was proclaimed emperor at Ravenna by Ricimer on 19 November 461, but
he was not recognized by the magzster militum Aegidius in Gaul, and his sole qualification for
office seems to have been his readiness to do Ricimer’s bidding and leave government to him. It
is usually believed, on the strength of the passage in Jordanes, that he was not recognized by
Leo, but the evidence of the coins, with substantial issues in Leo’s name from Italian mints, bears
out that of inscriptions which suggest that he was. He assumed the consulship in 462. The
Vandal danger persisted, with Gaiseric raiding the Italian coast, claiming a share of Valentinian
III’s wealth as part of the dowry of Eudocia, and, as now professedly an ally of the Theodosian
house, putting forward the claims of Olybrius to the Western throne. Severus died at Rome on
14 November 465—the date 15 August given by one source, usually reliable, seems to be an
error—apparently of natural causes, though subsequent rumor as reported by Cassiodorus has
him poisoned by Ricimer.
Severus’ coins are mainly of the customary denominations, but there is in addition an aston-
ishing twelve-solidus medallion, weighing 53.62 g and 52 mm in diameter, that is now at Turin
but was formerly in the Mazzini collection (Mazzini 1957-8, V, pl. xxv) and was first published
in 1940 (Cesano 1940b; Toynbee 1940). The obverse type consists of the profile bust of the
emperor, poorly designed, with an enormous eye and excessively short tails to the diadem, while
the reverse shows him raising a kneeling woman wearing a mural crown, presumably Ravenna,
with a figure of Valor to the left and a Victory crowning him to the right. There is no specific
mint-mark, but the form of the diadem and the general style show the coin to be of the mint of
Rome. Both the design and the legend (PIETAS AVG NOSTRI) have antecedents in the Con-
stantinian period, and although there is no obvious occasion of issue, there is little to justify the
doubts that have sometimes been expressed (e.g., by Ulrich-Bansa 1949, 271 note 40) on its
authenticity.
Severus’ coins are all from Italian mints, since Arles was in the hands of Aegidius, and have
been studied by Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 270-5) and Lacam (1983, 325-69). His solidi (887-95)
reverted to the traditional type of profile bust instead of continuing the helmeted version of
Avitus, and the reverse type remains that of emperor/serpent. The imperial bust is shown with
a rosette diadem on coins of Ravenna and Milan, but on those of Rome it is usually represented
by a band of square plaques with a pellet in each. The attribution of the solidi is clear, since they
all have mint-marks in the field. There is a unique consular solidus of Rome (UB pl. M.b), having
the usual reverse but as obverse type a consular bust to the left with mappa and cross-scepter.
Another unique solidus of Rome, of the normal type but with a star after COMOB, may have
been struck later in 462. The coins of Milan are somewhat over-represented here owing to the
purchase of a number from the Ulrich-Bansa collection.
Under Severus III the mint of Rome revived the semissis (C 2; Lacam 358-60), the type
253
254 SEVERUS III
being a Chi-Rho in a wreath and the diadem normally of the banded variety (896). The tremisses
(C 19-21; Lacam 360-9) are divisible on stylistic grounds between the mints as under Avitus,
coins with a banded diadem and a neat wreath being attributable to Rome (897—8). Ones with a
rougher wreath can be divided between Ravenna and Milan by slight differences in the style of
the bust but mainly by differences in the reverse legends, coins of Milan ending P F AVC and
those of Ravenna PERP AVC, the AV usually coalescing to an N.
Severus’ silver coins are siliquae with VRBIS ROMA (sic) and a seated Roma, with SMPS in
the exergue (C 15; BN, 2.05 g), and half-siliquae with a Chi-Rho in wreath and RM beneath (C
16; 899). His nummi, probably of Rome, are anomalous in that they bear not Severus’ mono-
gram but one formed by the letters R, C, I, and M (LRBC 871-2; 900), which can only stand for
RICIMER. The use of a monogram was in itself an innovation on Western coins, though they
had been customary for nearly two decades in the East, and the employment of Ricimer’s name,
that of an imperial subject, was a reflection of the patrician’s great position in the state. The
coins are seemingly one of the few post-455 Italian issues of nummi to have been minted on
anything like an extensive scale (above, p. 47).
Lacam has devoted a special study to these coins (Lacam 1988, more easily accessible than
Lacam 1987; cf. also Lacam 1983, 386-8, 390), with a detailed discussion of their designs and
with illustrations, including excellent enlargements, of about half the recorded specimens. Most
of them he attributes not to the reign of Severus but to the long interregnum from November
465 to April 467 that followed his reign in the West. Such an attribution, if correct, would
explain how an imperial official came to place his own monogram on an imperial coin. But while
on most of the known specimens there is no obverse legend—the bust is normally too large for
the tiny flan—on one specimen in the British Museum a final . .. RVSP of a legend is visible, so
that even if some of the coins were struck after Severus’ death, the issue must have started in his
lifetime. Most specimens were presumably struck at Rome, but Lacam (1988, 229) suggests that
the specimen at Dumbarton Oaks (900) is better assigned to Milan. His arguments, however,
based on considerations of style and fabric, do not seem to outweigh the absence of a specific
mint-mark in a period when the minting of bronze at Milan was a quite exceptional phenome-
non. There are also two heavier specimens (1.17 g, 2.17 g) of poor workmanship and rough
design, in one case with a wreath surrounding the monogram, which Lacam would date much
later, on the assumption that the wreath was intended to celebrate Olybrius’ assumption of
power in 472. The poor workmanship and irregular flans of the coins suggest that they are no
more than contemporary imitations of the main issue.
The relatively long period over which Severus’ coins were issued led to those of Ravenna
being extensively imitated by the Germanic peoples settled in Gaul, sometimes with RV but
usually with this transmuted to RA (MEC I, nos. 1.174—6). The traditional view of these is that
they are all Visigothic, though Lafaurie would prefer to attribute them to Aegidius, in succession
to earlier ones of Aetius (see references in MEC 1.45—6 and Lacam 1989). There was also an
extensive minting of tremisses in Severus’ name but having a Cross/Victory reverse type, appro-
priate to a solidus and not a tremissis, like those of Valentinian III already alluded to (above, p.
241).
ANTHEMIUS
Augustus 12 April 467-11 July 472
Colleagues: Leo I, Euphemia
After the death of Severus III in November 465, no move was made for over a year in either
West or East to replace him, Ricimer finding it possible to govern Italy alone and Leo being
preoccupied with other matters. It was probably a Vandal raid on the Peloponnese early in 467
that jolted Leo into the realization of the need to deal with Gaiseric. His choice as Western
emperor was Procopius Anthemius, one of the most prominent members of Constantinopolitan
society. His mother was a daughter of the great praetorian prefect Anthemius who had ruled
the East during the minority of Theodosius II, and he had himself married Euphemia, daughter
of Emperor Marcian, for whom he had briefly been considered a possible successor in 457. He
had held the office of magister militum and had the rank of patrician, besides having been joint
consul with Valentinian III in 455. He was created caesar early in 467 and set out immediately
for Italy, where he was acclaimed augustus by the Senate at the third milestone from Rome on
12 April. Ricimer’s support was apparently secured in advance by the promise that he could
marry the new emperor's daughter Alypia, the wedding in fact taking place later in the year.
The major military effort of the reign, his joint expedition with Leo against Gaiseric in 468,
was a total failure as a result of the incompetence of its Eastern leader, Leo’s brother-in-law
Basiliscus. Anthemius, disliked by the Italians as a Greek (graeculus), in the end quarreled with
Ricimer, who had had no children by Alypia and who resented Anthemius’ abilities and his
desire to exercise the reality of imperial authority. In 472, when Valentinian III’s son-in-law, the
senator and patrician Olybrius, was sent to Italy by Leo, Ricimer induced him to revolt and set
him up (April) as rival to Anthemius. The latter held out for some months in Rome, but the city
finally fell, and Anthemius, who had disguised himself as a beggar, was recognized and killed
by Gundobald (11 July 472). One of his sons had been killed fighting in Gaul in 471. The others
returned to Constantinople, where the eldest, Marcian, married Leo’s younger daughter, Leon-
tia, and with the support of his brothers attempted a coup d’état against Zeno in 479-80 that
gave the emperor considerable trouble before it was suppressed (full account in PLRE II, s.v.
Fl. Marcianus 17). The later history of Euphemia is unknown.
Anthemius’ coins were struck partly in his own name, partly in that of his wife Euphemia,
by whom he had had four sons as well as a daughter, and whom he created augusta, presumably
in 467. His coins consist mainly of solidi and are remarkable both for their abundance—they
must have been struck in great quantity for the Vandal expedition of 468—and for their novel
designs. Either Leo or Anthemius seems to have decided that the types should approach those
of the East, though the move toward a unified coinage was not very seriously pursued. Although
a three-quarter facing bust was introduced as obverse type it was not consistently rendered, and
the Cross-and-Victory type of the reverse was confined to solidi of Euphemia, those of Anthem-
ius preferring to emphasize the fact that the Western emperor had Eastern support by showing
the standing figures of Leo and Anthemius holding jointly either a long cross or a globus cru-
ciger, or having above their clasped hands an oval or square banner on which is inscribed the
255
256 ANTHEMIUS
word PAX, usually rendered as PAS or BAS. These coins were struck in Anthemius’ name only,
never in that of Leo, but they satisfied the requirements of collegiality and no separate solidi in
Leo’s name seem to have been minted during Anthemius’ reign.
Anthemius’ coins were struck at the three mints of Ravenna, Rome, and Milan, none being
known of Arles, and vary greatly in quality, some being of good style and fabric and others
crude in style and slovenly in workmanship, with strangely deformed letters. Presumably inex-
perienced personnel from outside the mints had to be brought in to cope with an unusually
large output. The order of issue of the various types has not been determined with certainty,
although the coinage has been the subject of careful study by Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 276-86, 296—
301), Lacam (1983, 414—90, 518-23), and Ungaro (1985, 59-70). This uncertainty is surprising,
in view of the diversity of the coins, but the only hoard of the reign, that of the Casa delle Vestali
discovered at Rome in 1899 (Boni 1899, now superseded by Ungaro 1985), which contained no
fewer than 345 solidi of the emperor, is not helpful, for 324 of these were of a single type and
the hoard probably dates from the very end of the reign.
The system of numbering the classes here, which seems unavoidable, is not entirely rational,
since Class I (which exists only at Ravenna), seems to have resulted from a misunderstanding of
instructions and does not antedate the use of the other types elsewhere. Apart from this, there
seems to have been a sequence of four issues for each of which a general direction was sent to
the mints, but without instructions as to how these should be carried out in detail and no models
being circulated on which designs could be based. The mints had to exercise their talents as best
they could, and in some instances, one suspects, they deliberately set out to create something
unattractive. In addition there was a consular issue, which is treated below as Class V, though it
no doubt dates from 468. The classes can be characterized as follows:
Class I. Two emperors holding long cross. Ravenna only.
This has a uniform reverse type, that of two standing emperors, nimbate, looking at each
other, each holding with one hand a globe and with the other, jointly, a long cross. The mint is
identified by R V in the field, COMOB in the exergue. There are two forms of obverse:
(a) Bust r. (Lacam pl. 104, Type 1; his var. 1 = 901).
(b) Armored bust facing (Lacam pl. 106-7, Type III; his var. 3 = 902).
Presumably the mint did not at first realize that it was expected to introduce a facing ar-
mored bust like that of Constantinopolitan solidi, and did so very clumsily when it made the
change. Both varieties are very rare, and the type was almost immediately replaced by the
next one.
Class II. Two emperors clasping hands, a banner with PAX and a cross above.
The emperors are in military attire, the one on the left (Leo) holding his right hand in front
of him in a gesture of respect to his younger colleague, the one on the right (Anthemius) holding
a globe surmounted by a Victory. The obverse is a facing armored bust. The issue probably
belongs to the fall of 467, the PAX referring to Anthemius’ establishment of his authority in
Italy and the peace his rule was expected to bring. Coins are known for all three mints.
(a) Ravenna, with R V and COMOB (Lacam pl. 108; his Type IV.1 = 903).
(b) Rome, with R M and COMOB (Lacam pl. 111, Type I [IV]; his var. 3 = 908). This
sometimes has PAX, but it is usually corrupted to PAS, as on the specimen here.
(c) Milan, with M D and COMOB, the PAX being invariably PAS with the loop of the P
having across it a horizontal bar, giving it the appearance of B (Lacam pls. 121—2; 904-7).
Presumably, since Rome has PAX and PAS and Milan only P(orB)AS, the Milanese die-
sinker is copying Rome. Cassiodorus in the sixth century, in his De orthographia, noted the occa-
COINAGE OF ANTHEMIUS 257
sional confusion of the letters P and B, but the transmutation of X into S is hard to explain.
Class III. Two emperors, each holding a spear and jointly a globus cruciger, with armored bust on
obverse.
This exists for all three mints, but with innumerable variants of which only the chief ones
need be listed here.
(a) Ravenna.
1. With COMOB, star in field (Lacam pl. 110, Type V.B, var. 3 and Type VI.A).
2. With COMOB, RV and star in field (Lacam pl. 110, Type V.B, vars. 1, 2).
3. With CORVO in exergue, star (eight-pointed) in field (Lacam pl. 110, Type VI.B). The
RV in what would normally be COMOB imitates the CORMOB of Rome.
(b) Rome
These fall into three main groups, with either RM in the field, or a star in the field, or some
form of Christogram in the field, these last (> , *, or P?) being no more than the varying ways
in which the die-sinkers interpreted an instruction to insert a Christogram (* is a monogram of
the initials of "Inoot¢ Xeuotdc). In the exergue there is either COMOB or CORMOB/CORNOB,
that is, with R or RM incorporated into the customary COMOB/CONOB formula because, with
no RM in the field, the mint would not otherwise be sufficiently identified. All variations except
two are illustrated by Lacam, and, despite the confused character of his references, it seems
desirable to include them here.
A. With RM in the field
1. RM/COMOB (Lacam pl. 114-15, Class I; pl. 117, Class II, vars. 1, 2; Class III, var. 1;
915).
2. RM/COMOB* (Lacam — ; Ponton d’Amécourt sale, lot 822).
B. With star (eight-pointed) in the field
3. Star/COMOB (Lacam pl. 123, Type III (V); 918).
4. Star/CORMOB (Lacam pl. 119, Class II, vars. 3, 4).
C. With XX, *, or P in the field
5. P/COMOB (Lacam — ; Montagu sale, lot 1018).
6. */COMOB (Lacam pl. 117, Class III, var. 2; pl. 118; 916).
7. */CORMOB (Lacam pl. 119, Class III, vars. 1, 2; pl. 120; 917).
8. */CORNOB (Lacam pl. 119, Class II, var. 2, and Class III).
9. f#/COMOB (Lacam pl. 116, Class II; pl. 117, Class II, var. 3 and Class III, var. 3; 919).
10. #/CORMOB (Lacam pl. 119, Class III, var. 3).
11. P/;CORNOB (Lacam pl. 119, Class II, var. 1).
The commonest of these are forms | and 6, which seem to have been the standard forms
of which the others are variants. No. 2, with a star after COMOB, may have accompanied An-
themius’ inauguration as consul in January 468.
(c) Milan
1. With M D and COMOB, the M in MD often having the form N (Lacam pls. 124-126;
909-13).
Class IV. Same reverse, but the obverse is a cloaked bust with spear.
This was likewise struck in all the mints, and represents a compromise between the tradi-
tional profile bust of the West, which is preserved from the neck downward, and the three-
quarter facing armored bust of the East, which provides the head, helmet, and spear.
(a) Ravenna
1. R VICOMOB (Lacam pl. 109, Class II = 920).
258 ANTHEMIUS
2. Same, but star (eight-pointed) above RV (Lacam pl. 109, Class I, var. 2).
3. Star only, without RV (Lacam pl. 109, vars. 1, 3), the style of the bust on the obverse
justifying the attribution to Ravenna.
There is also an anomalous coin (Lacam pl. 104, Type II) which has on the obverse a profile
bust (as on early coins of Ravenna) and on the reverse a small star in the field, as on the last
coins. There was presumably some muling of dies.
(b) Rome
1. With RMA in monogram and COMOB (Lacam pl. 112; his nos. 7 and 8 = 924, 923).
2. Same, but pellet beneath monogram (Lacam pl. 113, var. 2; his no. 5 = 925).
3. Same as 2, but -COMOB.-: (Lacam pl. 113, var. 4).
These coins made up the bulk of the Casa delle Vestali hoard, and were evidently the main
type of the last years of the reign. Mules with the preceding class exist:
(a) Obverse of Class IV with reverse of III.7 (UB pl. M.o).
(b) Obverse of Class III (armored bust) with reverse of IV. 2 (Signorelli sale I11, Santamaria
sale, 15.11.1953, lot 1454).
(c) Milan
1. With MD, usually as a monogram, and COMOB. (Lacam, pl. 123; 921-2).
Class V. Consular type. Rome only.
This coin is known in only a single specimen in an Italian private collection (Gorini 1987a).
The legends are D N ANTHEMI — VS PERPET AVG and VOTIS — MVLTIS, the obverse type
a facing bust of the emperor in consular robes holding mappa and cross, and the reverse type
two seated figures in consular costume each holding the same insignia. The mint-mark RM is
on the central lower panel of the throne, with COMOB in the exergue. The edge of the coin is.
damaged in two places, so the weight is only 4.25 g. Anthemius was consul only once during his.
reign, in 468, and since it was a postconsular year of Leo in the East—no consul for the year
had been named—the presence of the second seated figure in the reverse type is explicable.
Probably the mint had in any case a general instruction to the effect that Leo was to be shown in
company with Anthemius on all solidi.
The fractional gold coins of Anthemius include both semisses and tremisses. The semissis
type is the traditional Chi-Rho in a wreath, with COMOB below (C 15; Lacam pl. 131; 926), the
loop of the rho being sometimes to the left instead of the right of the vertical stroke (e.g., San-
tamaria sale, 24.i.1938, lot 1105). They all have the emperor’s name followed by P F AVC, are
stylistically very uniform, and are probably of Rome.
The tremisses are more of a problem. They are all of the usual type, with a cross in a wreath
and COMOB below, but they exist with both broken and unbroken legends, with both PERPET
AVG and P F AVG, and with a variety of wreath forms. Those with a neat wreath and either
PERPET or P F are best ascribed to Rome (Lacam pl. 132; 928-9), while those with a large,
untidy wreath and either a P F legend or a PERPET one (Lacam pl. 133, types I-IV; his Type ]
= 927) are Milan. There are also some with a relatively neat wreath attributable to Ravenna
(Lacam pl. 133, vars. 1-3).
The only recorded silver coins of Anthemius are half-siliquae of ca 0.9 g having a Chi-Rho
in a neat wreath. They form two classes, one without any mint-mark and Anthemius’ name
followed by P F, the inscription being unbroken (e.g., Peus sale 250, 15.iii.1954; Lejeune coll.),
the other with the mint-mark RM and Anthemius’ name followed by PERPET (PCR III.1558).
Both coins can be ascribed to Rome despite the absence on the first of any mint-mark. Gallic
siliquae in Anthemius’ name have as reverse type a seated Roma with inappropriate legend
COINAGE OF ANTHEMIUS 259
(SALVS (or SLVS) REIPVBLICAE) and mint-mark (CONOB) (C 13; Lafaurie 1964a, 218, no.
11; Blackburn 1988, 172-3). It is unlikely that they can have had an official prototype, but the
existence of a full siliqua of Euphemia implies that this denomination was also struck for An-
themius.
The only AE are ones of Rome, apparently with a P F AVG inscription and having as reverse
type a monogram of the letters ANTHE in a wreath (C 1; LRBC 874; 930-1). It is surprising
that the monogram was not completed with an M, for this could have been included by the
addition of a single stroke. The coin with a cross and a Salus Reipublicae inscription attributed to
Anthemius in the catalogue of the Trau sale, lot 4705, seems to be a misread one of some earlier
emperor.
There is at Dumbarton Oaks a copper coin of rough workmanship (932), perhaps intended
to be gilded, having as obverse legend DNANTHEMIVSPPAVG and on the reverse a monogram
of the emperor that includes an M but is upside down in relation to the wreath. The use of PP
instead of PERPET or PF and the form and placing of the monogram condemn the coin as a
forgery, perhaps of the nineteenth century, but what denomination it was intended to represent
is not clear.
EUPHEMIA
Wife of Anthemius
Augusta 467—472(?)
(Aelia) Marcia Euphemia was the daughter of the Eastern emperor Marcian and the wife of
Anthemius. She married the latter ca. 453 while he was still no more than a high official at the
court of Constantinople. As she had four sons and a daughter, she presumably received the title
of augusta on her husband’s accession. Whether she survived Anthemius’ murder in 472 is un-
known.
The coins struck in the empress’ name are limited to solidi, of which there are two types,
and to siliquae and AE 4, all either unique or of extreme rarity. Her ordinary Roman solidi, of
which about 15 specimens, ten of them from the Casa delle Vestali hoard, are known (C 1-2;
933; Lacam 1983, 490-3; Ungaro 1985, nos. 356—65), have her profile bust on the obverse and
a Cross and Victory on the reverse, their only curious feature being the removal of the star that
customarily occupies the right field of the reverse to the end of the legend. Her name is spelled
out in full, in the genitive case, with her Greek origin underlined by the use of F instead of PH
and on some specimens an I instead of E: D N AEL MARC EVFE(or I)MIAE PE (or P F) AVG.
The normal mint-mark is COMOB, but CORMOB also occurs (PCR II1.1560; Casa delle Vestali
hoard, no. 365). There is a clumsy forgery by Becker (Hill 1924-5, pl. x1v.272; a specimen of it
is in the Smithsonian Institution collection.
The other coins of Euphemia are each unique. The siliqua, then in a private collection in
France, was published in 1865 by its owner (Poydenot 1865 = C 3). The type is that of a seated
Roma with legend VRBIS (sic) ROMA and RMPS in the exergue. The obverse legend, recon-
structed with some difficulty since the coin was double-struck, was believed by Cohen to read D
N AELIAE MARCIAE PP EVFIMIIC (?). The weight is not recorded.
The AE 4 of Euphemia was unknown to the authors of LRBC, but a specimen (1.1 g, 15
mm) was published in 1965 (Caballero 1965). It has on the obverse a profile bust and an inscrip-
tion shortened by the omission of MARC(iae), and on the reverse Roma seated and VRBS
ROMA. The exergue is illegible.
Finally, there is at Dumbarton Oaks a remarkable solidus (934; from MMAG Basel sale 52,
19.vi.1975, lot 808), which was acquired by a member of the MMAG staff somewhere in the
eastern Mediterranean. The obverse inscription reads D N EVFYMIA P F AVG, the type being
a facing bust of the empress wearing a crown with pinnacles and long pendilia. It is obviously
based on the facing bust on solidi of Licinia Eudoxia (870), though the face is too badly worn—
the coin is pierced and the wear was clearly occasioned by its having been used as a pendant—
for any details to be visible. The reverse legend is GLORIA REIPVBLICAE and the type two
nimbate female figures, each wearing a crown with pinnacles and holding a globus cruciger, the
globe in each case being virtually nonexistent. The letters RM stand in the field, and the exergue
has COMOB.
The figure on the left from the spectator’s standpoint, thus occupying the place of honor
and the larger of the two, can only be Euphemia herself. The other is presumably her daughter
260
COINAGE OF EUPHEMIA 261
Alypia, who married the patrician Ricimer at Rome late in 467, the festivities and rejoicings on
the occasion being described by Sidonius Apollinaris (Ep. 1.5.10). Her crown and costume sug-
gest that she may have received the title of augusta, and although this is stated by none of the
written sources, it would have had Theodosian precedents, for Pulcheria and Honoria were both
nominated augustae without being married. It would have been anomalous in view of the fact
that none of her brothers had the title of augustus or, so far as we know, even that of caesar, but
neither it nor her appearance on a coin are any more anomalous than is the presence of Rici-
mer’s monogram on nummi of Severus III. Ricimer’s dominant role in government made any-
thing possible. The subsequent silence of the sources suggests that she may have died soon after
her marriage, perhaps in childbirth.
The validity of this reconstruction of course depends on the coin being authentic. The
unusual character of the reverse type, the aberrant style of the lettering, and the strange spelling
EVFYMIA for the empress’ name are all calculated to raise doubts. The style and lettering are
indeed totally different from those of Euphemia’s normal solidi of Rome, the mint of which is
guaranteed by the existence of a few having the mint-mark in the form CORMOB and by the
presence of nine of the others in the Casa delle Vestali hoard. It is also quite different in style
and lettering from Anthemius’ solidi of the same mint. But the letter forms and general treat-
ment are very similar to those of an aberrant solidus of Anthemius of the mint of Ravenna (920)
and an equally aberrant one of Julius Nepos from Rome (938). The worn condition of the coin
and the fact of its having been pierced are in favor of its being genuine, or at least of its being
antique, and a counterfeit of the time with a totally strange design seems unlikely. The coin
should probably be accepted as what it claims to be, an authentic if aberrant product of the
Roman mint, the die-sinker being someone employed in the court and available for occasional
employment at either Rome or Ravenna as circumstances required.
OLYBRIUS
April-2 November 472
Usurper in Italy, not recognized at Constantinople
Olybrius was a member of a great senatorial family, that of the Anicii, and was husband of
Valentinian III’s daughter Placidia. This brought him into relations with Gaiseric, whose son
Huneric had married Placidia’s elder sister Eudocia, and Gaiseric proposed him as emperor on
the death of Majorian in 461. He had settled in Constantinople after the sack of Rome in 455,
and was consul in 464. In 472 he was sent to Italy, with the mission of trying to restore peace
between Anthemius and Ricimer, but Leo wrote privately to Anthemius accusing Olybrius of
disloyalty and advising that he be put to death (Bury 1886, from Malalas). The letter fell into
Ricimer’s hands, whereupon Olybrius was persuaded to accept nomination as emperor (April
472). In July the usurper was installed in Rome, Anthemius being executed on 11 July, but
Olybrius reigned only a few months, dying of dropsy on 2 November. His daughter Anicia
Juliana (d. 527/8), who had remained in Constantinople, played a considerable role in the social
and religious life of the capital over the next half-century and has left behind a tangible me-
morial in the great Vienna codex of Dioscorides, which was written for her and came from her
library.
The coins of Olybrius are of extreme rarity, only about a dozen specimens being known.
They are covered in Cohen (VIII.234—6), Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 287-8), and Lacam (1983, 539-
48, with very full illus.). The facing bust of Anthemius’ solidi was retained, but since Olybrius
had no military aspirations, the helmet and shouldered spear were eliminated. The coins are
also remarkable in using the emperor's family name in their inscriptions (D N ANICIVS OLY-
BRIVS AVG, without P F). They are without a specific mint-mark.
The solidi (C 1-3; illus. in PCR III.1561) have on the reverse a quite novel type, a large
jeweled cross accompanied by the inscription SALVS MVNDI. It was presumably intended as
propaganda against Anthemius, who was suspected of paganizing tendencies. The coins, of
which only four specimens are known, are customarily ascribed to Rome, but they are of two
distinct styles, and it would seem more reasonable to ascribe only Lacam’s variety (b), with the
cloak designed exactly like that of Anthemius’ Roman solidi, to Rome, leaving his variety (a) to
Ravenna. It is possible that solidi with a traditional Victory reverse remain to be discovered,
since there are two types of tremisses. One (C —; illus. Lacam 547) has the same reverse type
and legend as the solidi and presumably belongs to Rome, while the others (C 4—5; illus. Lacam
547) have the traditional cross in a wreath with the large leaves that characterize Milan. No silver
or copper coins have been recorded.
262
GLYCERIUS
5 March 473-19 or 24 June 474
The unexpected death of Olybrius on 2 November 472 left Leo I titular ruler of the entire
Empire, but effective power in Italy was in the hands of Ricimer’s nephew Gundobald, a Bur-
gundian who, after joining Ricimer in 472 to help him against Anthemius, had succeeded him
as magister militum and been accorded the title of patrician by Olybrius. After an interval of four
months, Gundobald had Glycerius, count of the domestics, proclaimed augustus at Ravenna on
5 March 473.
Nothing is known of Glycerius’ family, though he may have been related to a bishop of Milan
of the same name earlier in the century. The history of his reign is almost equally a blank. He
evidently had diplomatic gifts, for when a large group of Ostrogoths invaded Italy in 473, he
managed by a bribe of 2,000 solidi to persuade Widimir, a cousin of Theoderic the Great, to
lead them instead into Gaul. But Leo I declined to recognize him, and in 474 Julius Nepos, who
had married a relative of the empress Verina and was governor of Dalmatia, where he had
succeeded his uncle Marcellinus, was ordered to dispose of him. In June 474 Nepos landed near
Porto, at the mouth of the Tiber, captured Glycerius, who apparently surrendered without a
fight, and was proclaimed augustus at Rome on either the 19th or the 24th. (Different manu-
script traditions give viii or xi kal. Jul.) Whether Nepos had been designated emperor by Zeno,
or took advantage of circumstances and was recognized subsequently, is not clear. Glycerius’ life
was spared, but he was consecrated bishop of Salona, a see conveniently vacant in the family fief
of the new emperor. This was presumably intended as an insurance against trouble, but, accord-
ing to the historian Malchus, he bore a natural grudge and was responsible for Nepos’ murder
in 480.
Although Glycerius reigned for sixteen months, his coins are rare, fewer than 40 specimens
being known. Those in gold are carefully studied by Lacam (1983, 557-72). Coins of Ravenna
account for half of them, and there are no solidi of Rome, though since tremisses exist that can
be attributed to this mint, some may yet come to light. The tremissis reverse type is the custom-
ary cross in wreath, but the solidus types mark a deliberate break with the “Eastern” ones of his
two predecessors and a return to more traditional Western patterns. This is most conspicuously
the case with the obverses, which have a well-modeled profile bust, usually with a rosette diadem,
that look back to a fourth-century model—the derivation is particularly evident on the coins of
Milan—instead of a facing one. The reverse types are two varieties of a standing figure of the
emperor holding a long cross and a globe with Victory and placing one foot on a low footstool
with an evident allusion to Ps. 109:1: “Dixit Dominus Domino meo: Sede a dextris meis; donec
ponam inimicos tuos scabellum pedum tuorum” (“The Lord said unto my lord: sit thou at my
right hand, until I shall make thine enemies thy footstool”). The variety on which the emperor's
right foot is so placed is based on the type generally used in the West from 425 to 461, with the
stool replacing the serpent’s human head; the other goes back further and is a modification of
the Emperor-trampling-on-captive type dominant on the coinage of Honorius and only
dropped just after the accession of Valentinian III (cf. 835). A peculiarity of the obverse legend
263
264 GLYCERIUS
is that it reads F P AVG instead of the customary P F AVG, the distortion of the traditional pius
felix presumably resulting from the formula having been omitted entirely on the coins of Oly-
brius. The reverse legend normally ends GG, but a few coins of Ravenna, presumably struck
after the association of Leo II in January 474, have GGG.
I. Gold Coins
The solidi may be classed as follows:
Type I. Emperor with left foot on stool. Ravenna only. C 1; Lacam pl. 138, Type 1. Lacam
distinguishes two varieties:
(1) with pearl diadem (935) and (2) with rosette diadem.
Type 2. Emperor with right foot on stool. C 2—3 (936). Ravenna, Milan.
Ravenna. RV in field. C 3; Lacam pl. 138. Lacam distinguishes three varieties within his
“types” 2-4:
(1) with GLVCER — IVS and COMOB*,
(2) with GLVCERI — VS and COMOB* (936),
(3) with legend ending GGG and COMOB.
Milan. MD in field. C 2; Lacam pl. 139. Lacam makes of these three “types” and several
“varieties,” but, apart from the fact that some coins have the reverse legend broken VICTORIA
— AVGG and others VICTORI — AAVGG, these are no more than differences between dies.
Tremisses. Cross in wreath with COMOB beneath. C 7; Lacam pls. 140-1. Ravenna, Milan,
and Rome. The coins attributed to Ravenna have a neat, segmented wreath, those of Rome a
similar but unsegmented one, and those of Milan (937) a rough and straggly one. One group of
coins from Rome has P F instead of F P.
II. Silver Coins
The only recorded silver coins are of Rome. C 6 has a Chi-Rho in wreath as reverse type,
in the Hedervar Museum with COMOB or, on a specimen at Vienna (Arneth 1842, II.210), with
nothing, but in the latter case the mint-signature is in fact off flan. No weights are given, but the
coin is evidently a siliqua. The other, C 4 (illus.), in Paris (1.14 g) is of traditional half-siliqua
type, with a Victory advancing left holding wreath and palm, with VICTORI —- AAAVGGG
legend and RM in the exergue. A third coin, C 8, cited from a manuscript catalogue of Rollin
pére of 1811, with a cross in a wreath, is probably a silver forgery of a tremissis.
III. Bronze Coins
Cohen describes two small AE, but the description of neither carries conviction. C 5, with
VICTORI — AAVGGG and a facing Victory with wreath and palm, is probably an earlier fifth-
century coin with the obverse inscription misread, or perhaps retooled. C 9, in the former Welz]
von Wellenheim collection, having a standing figure with cross and scepter on the reverse and
only DNG legible on the obverse, must be a coin of Leo I with the standing figure of Verina (as
582-6). One might expect some small AE of Glycerius with-a monogram, but none has so far
been identified.
Lacam attributes to the reign of Glycerius, as having been struck in the name of Leo II
(Lacam 1983, 572-8), a small group of tremisses from the three mints of Italy. The obverse
legend is DNLEOPE — RPETAVG or variant and the attribution justified by the relatively youth-
ful appearance of the imperial bust. But the portraiture of coins struck in Glycerius’ reign is as
COINAGE OF GLYCERIUS 265
likely to be influenced by that of his own coins as by any notion of Leo II’s age or appearance,
and Leo II’s sole reign was too brief for any minting in the West to be conceivable. If the coins
were minted prior to Leo II's association, they would have to be in the name of Leo I, if after
Leo I’s death, they would be in the joint names of Leo II and Zeno. If the coins are indeed of
Glycerius’ time, as on grounds of style seems probable, they must be of 473 and the Leo of the
inscriptions must be Leo I and not his grandson.
JULIUS NEPOS
Augustus 19 or 24 June 474—4 May 480
(effectively only to 28 August 475)
Colleagues:
Leo II (to November 474)
Zeno (to 9 January 475 and from August 476)
Basiliscus (9 January 475—August 476)
Usurper in the West:
Romulus Augustulus (31 October 475—September 476)
Julius Nepos was a professional soldier who owed his early advancement to his mother
having been a sister of the patrician and magister militum Marcellinus, a general who had played
a prominent role in Dalmatian and Italian affairs down to his murder in 468 when about to set
sail in command of the Western contingents in the great Vandal expedition. Nepos appears tc
have inherited his uncle’s position in Dalmatia, ruling it almost as a personal fief. In the summer
of 474 he was sent to Italy to overthrow Glycerius, and having done so he proceeded to seize the
throne himself. He was proclaimed augustus at Porto (near Rome) on 19 June and accepted by
the Senate on the 24th.
Nepos’ effective reign lasted little over a year. In August 475 he was attacked by the magister
militum Orestes and fled from Ravenna to Salona on the 28th, resuming his former control of
Dalmatia and “reigning” there until his murder by a disaffected follower on 9 May 480. When
Odovacar overthrew Orestes and Romulus Augustulus in August 476, the way might have
seemed open for his return, but Odovacar sent the imperial ornaments to Zeno on the ground
that a separate emperor in the West was no longer necessary. He at the same time requested the
title of patrician for himself. Zeno replied that the request should have been addressed to Nepos,
who was still legitimate emperor. The coinage shows that Odovacar did in fact recognize Nepos,
and when the latter was murdered we know that he tooks steps to punish those who were guilty.
But it is clear from the sources that Nepos did not leave Dalmatia and that Odovacar, not Nepos,
was the effective ruler of Italy.
It has usually been assumed that all Nepos’ coins, which were minted at Rome, Ravenna,
Milan, and Arles, date from his effective reign in 474—5, but the presence of two solidi of Nepos
and five of Zeno of the mint of Milan in the Vedrin hoard led to a new study of the Milanese
solidi by Lallemand (1965c, 121-31) and a more general study of Nepos’ coinage by Kent (1966),
the latter arguing that many of the Milanese coins were minted by Odovacar in the name of
Nepos as well as in that of Zeno in the years 476—80. There is also now available to scholars the
substantial body of material collected and discussed in meticulous detail by Lacam (1983, 579—
713). Whether Nepos became emperor with initial Eastern approval is not clear. His coins show
him exploiting the principle of collegiality by extensive minting in the name of his “colleagues”
Leo (II) and Zeno but apparently not in that of Basiliscus, all the Italian issues in Basiliscus’
name being assignable to the period of Romulus’ usurpation. He was certainly recognized by
Zeno, with exceedingly rare solidi minted at Constantinople in his name (MIRB “Leo II” 3).
266
EARLY COINAGE OF NEPOS 267
The bulk of Nepos’ coinage is “Eastern” in character, the solidus having on the obverse an
armored bust three-quarter facing and on the reverse a Cross and Victory, with a star in the
field. The coinage at Rome, however, began with an anomalous solidus of which the only known
specimen is at Dumbarton Oaks (938). It has on the obverse a cloaked bust with spear and on
the reverse two standing emperors holding each a spear and jointly a globus cruciger, with in
the center field the mint-letters R V and two pellets beneath. Lacam, who discussed the coin in
great detail (Lacam 1983, 598-601), read the mint-signature as RM, an interpretation favored
by the verticality of the right-hand stroke, but a badly formed V seems more likely, the coin
following on directly from the last Ravennate solidi of Anthemius (920), which it copies in type
and closely resembles in style and letter forms. It is extremely crude in design and lettering, the
emperor's name being spelled IVLIVS NEPVS and the reverse inscription badly blundered. The
coin was presumably struck in 474, as soon as the news of Nepos’ elevation reached Ravenna
and before it was known what the design of his coins was going to be. When it was replaced by
a new type copied from that of Rome, there was a complete change in style and workmanship,
a highly incompetent die-sinker being evidently replaced by one much better qualified for his
duties.
The dating of the other types and denominations is largely determined by whether they
were also struck for Leo (II) and Zeno, or for Zeno only. Most of the coins probably belong to
474-5, with only those of Milan struck after Julius Nepos’ “restoration” in 476. The main in-
novation of the reign, the revival of the minting of half-siliquae on a regular basis and quite
original in design, certainly belongs to the years 474-5. The coins are of two types, an eagle
with wings unfurled and a cross above its head at Rome, a city Tyche standing on a prow and
holding a scepter and cornucopia at Ravenna. The first is not known for Nepos but exists in the
name of Leo II (above, p. 172) and Zeno (above, pp. 185-6); specimens in Nepos’ name will
probably sometime come to light. The second is known in the names of Nepos (942), Romulus
(below, p. 269), Basiliscus (618), and Zeno (672-3). Many of the coins in Zeno’s name and that
of Nepos probably belong to the years 476—80, but the existence of ones in Leo’s name and that
of Basiliscus shows that they must go back to 474/5. Ulrich-Bansa assumed that the Tyche on the
Ravenna coins was a representation of Constantinopolis and a counterpart of the Roman eagle
on the coins of Rome, but Ravenna was a seaport as well as a capital and the figure is more likely
to represent Ravenna itself.
I. Coinage of 474-5
Ravenna (Lacam 1983, 615-20, 683-5)
1. Solidus. Armored bust and Cross-and-Victory type, with two pellets after CCC and R V
in field (C 6; 939).
2. Tremissis. Profile bust and cross-in-wreath type (C 16 ff), the coins of Ravenna (940)
having a wreath of neat, regular leaves not easily distinguishable from that of Rome.
3. Siliqua, with Rome seated and VRBIS ROMA (sic) legend, RVPS in exergue (C 13; 941).
4. Half-siliqua. Ravenna standing on prow with scepter and cornucopia, R V in field (C 15;
942).
Milan (Lacam 1983, 626—47, 685-90)
1. Solidus (C 5; 943-5) with MD in field and a star after the legend (Lallemand 1965c, 128—
9, Class III). Only found for Nepos. Kent (1966) pointed out that while Lallemand’s
Classes I and II of Milan are of much poorer design and have die-links between them,
268 JULIUS NEPOS
her Class III has no such links and resembles very closely the solidi of Rome and Ra-
venna. To this one may add (a) that the star frequently indicated a consulship, which it
would have been natural for Nepos to have assumed in January 475, though there is
no documentary or epigraphic evidence that he did so, and (b) that the absence of coins
in the names of Leo and Zeno is explicable if the issue started only in January 475.
2. Tremisses with wreath ties formed by XX or XXX and about ten pairs of small spikes (C
16 ff; as 955).
Rome (Lacam 1983, 602—5, 680-3)
1. Solidi without mint-mark, but with a star in the right field and two pellets after CCC
(946). Varieties have the star in the left field (Vierordt sale I, Schulman 5.iii.1923, lot
2905) or are without star (BM). The type was struck also for Leo and Zeno.
2. Semissis (C 3, citing a specimen in the Tanini coll. not traced by Lacam 1983, 678), with
Chi-Rho in wreath and COMOB beneath. It would be the counterpart of the similar
issue in Zeno’s name (illus. Lacam 1983, 679, fig. 27).
3. Tremisses (C 16 ff; 940), with cross in a wreath that is neat and compact, with COMOB
beneath. Also exists for Leo II and Zeno.
Since there exist half-siliquae in the names of Leo and of Zeno having as type an eagle with
outstretched wings that were probably minted at this time, one would expect similar coins of
Nepos, but they are still to be found. King (1987b, 207/15b) records a half-siliqua with a turreted
figure as on coins of Ravenna but with R M in the field.
Arles (Lacam 1983, 668-72, 690-2)
1. Solidus (C 6; 948), with A R in field. This must belong to 474—5, for southern Provence
was overrun by the Visigothic king Euric (466—84) shortly after his conquest and an-
nexation of Auvergne in 475, an annexation reluctantly recognized by Nepos.
II. Later Period, 476—480
The later coinage seems to be limited to Milan, not surprisingly in view of the fact that
Ravenna was Odovacar’s own seat of government and Rome had been virtually transferred to
the jurisdiction of the Senate. The coins Kent assigns to this period are Lallemand’s Classes I
and II, which are much cruder in style than the others. Lacam, however, though attributing
some coins to Nepos’ “reign” in Dalmatia (Lacam 1983, 702-13), disagrees with this view and
makes of them a Group IV belonging to 474—5 (ibid., 641-7).
1. Solidi with M D and COMOB (no star) (951-3). A specimen was found at Molenend in
Friesland in 1957 (Zadoks-Josephus Jitta 1957).
2. Similar, but with two pellets after CCC and a pellet on either side of COMOB (954).
3. Tremisses having a wreath with large spikes (8-10 pairs) and the tie often in the form
XIX and rather flat (955).
These three groups of coins were struck in Zeno’s name as well as that of Nepos, but are not
known for Leo. A siliqua of Arles in Leningrad (Pridik 1930, 84, no. 64) with VOTIS/V/
MVLTIS/X in a wreath and PCON beneath (C 12 from Tanini; erroneously with MVLT) cannot
be authentic. Although the style, to judge by Pridik’s illustration, is good, its weight (2.17 g) and
condition, the PCON mint-mark, and the use of VOTIS and MVLTIS instead of VOT and
MVLT show it to be a recut coin of the late fourth century.
> 6
ROMULUS “AUGUSTULUS”
Usurper in Italy, not recognized by Constantinople
31 October 475-—early September 476
Romulus “Augustus” (usually Agustus on the coins), nicknamed Augustulus, was the young
son of a soldier from Pannonia named Orestes, one-time secretary to Attila, who was appointed
magister militum by Julius Nepos early in 475. The boy’s first name came from his maternal grand-
father, Romulus comes, who had played a role in public life during the middle years of the
century and been sent on an embassy to Attila in 449; the common addition of “Augustus” was
apparently a consequence of this being spelled out in full on the coins. Orestes raised a revolt
in August 475, but Julius Nepos escaped from Ravenna on 28 August and took refuge in Salona.
The rebel was then apparently at a loss what to do, for it was not until 31 October that he had
his son proclaimed emperor at Rome. The revolt coincided in date with that of Basiliscus at
Constantinople, but while coins struck at Italian mints in the name of Basiliscus (above, p. 178)
prove that Orestes recognized his usurpation, Basiliscus did not reciprocate by any recognition
of Romulus. The “reign” of the latter, purely nominal in character, lasted almost exactly a year,
till Orestes was in his turn faced by a military revolt under the leadership of the Scirian or
Rugian magister militum Odovacar. Orestes fled to Pavia but was captured and put to death (28
August 476). A few days later Odovacar entered Ravenna, but he spared Romulus’ life because
of his youth and good looks and sent him, with an annual pension of 6,000 solidi, into comfort-
able exile in Campania, where he died early in the next century (after 507).
Coins were struck in the name of Romulus (D N ROMVLVS AGVSTVS P F AVG) in the
palace mint (i.e., at Ravenna) and at Rome, Milan, and perhaps Arles, but so far as is known
they were limited to gold (solidi and tremisses) and silver (half-siliquae of ca. 0.9 g). They are
covered in Cohen (VIII.241—4), Ulrich-Bansa (1949, 310—28), and Lacam (1983, 715-41, with
detailed stylistic analysis of virtually all known specimens of the gold). Romulus’ somewhat mis-
leading reputation as the last Roman emperor in the West—misleading because he was a
usurper and the legitimate Western emperor, Julius Nepos, survived till 480—led to them being
extensively counterfeited for collectors in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. No copper
coins with a monogram attributable to Romulus have been identified.
The solidi have on the reverse a Victory supporting a cross, a star in the right field, three
C’s in the legend, and COMOB in the exergue. Those with no specific mint-mark occur in three
varieties, (a) with no pellets after CCC (949), (b) with CCC:, and (c) with CCC: and -COMOB.-.
Kent (1978, note on no. 767), attributes those with the spelling AGVSTVS (as 949) to Milan.
Those of Rome have RM in the field with (a) CCC, or (b) CCC: and a star above the M of RM,
or (c) CCC followed by a star. The only known specimen of Arles has AR in the field and nothing
after CCC, but the reverse shows traces of recutting and the authenticity of the coin is not above
suspicion.
The tremisses are all of the Cross-in-wreath type with COMOB beneath. They are divided
by the style of the bust and the form of the wreath between Rome and presumably Milan (950).
269
270 ROMULUS “AUGUSTULUS”
The only silver coins are of Ravenna and have Nepos’ reverse type of a standing figure of
Ravenna wearing a mural crown and holding a ball-topped scepter and a cornucopia (as 942)
with RV in the field. Two forms of obverse inscription have been noted, with (a) ROM
AVGVSTVS (C 7: BN) or (b) ROMVL AVGVSTYVS (C 8: Rollin stock).
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1
Imperial Consulships, 380—479
Two consuls were appointed each year, and their office was recognized throughout the Em-
pire for all official purposes, notably in the dating formula of legal documents. Although the
expenses involved in the festivities that accompanied the office were enormous, it was normally
assumed by each emperor in the year following his accession and occasionally thereafter. Ini-
tially the names of the two consuls had been jointly proclaimed at Rome, but with the gradual
separation of the Empire into two halves, it became customary for each emperor to make his
own nomination, and sometimes a few months went by during which only one name could be
used in a date formula and the other had to be covered by some such phrase as “et qui de
Oriente fuerit nuntiatus.” The regular series of nominations in East and West might also be
upset by the nomination of usurpers or the occasional refusal of one sovereign to recognize his
colleague’s choice. The numbering is in a few cases complicated by the fact that emperors might
have held the office earlier in their careers: Honorius in 386 while still only nobilisstmus puer,
Constantius (II) in 414 and 417, Anthemius in 455 (in the East), Basiliscus in 465, and Zeno in
469. These consulships are noted in italics. In the fourth and fifth centuries the consulships
were often arranged to coincide with quinquennial vota celebrations; see Burgess (1988). Bagnall
et al. (1987) is a fully documented and authoritative survey of the consular office and its occu-
pants from 284 onward.
380 Theodosius I (I)
381
382
383
384 (West) Magnus Maximus (I) (or perhaps in 385)
385 Arcadius (I)
386 Honorius I
387 Valentinian II (III)
388 (West) Magnus Maximus (II)
(East) Theodosius I (II)
389
390 Valentinian II (IV)
391
392 Arcadius (II)
393 (West) Theodosius I (III); Eugenius
(East) Theodosius I (IIT)
394 (East) Arcadius (III); Honorius (II)
395
273
274
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
42]
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
43]
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
APPENDIX 1
EAST WEST
Arcadius (IV) Honorius (III)
Honorius (IV)
Arcadius (V) Honorius (V)
Theodosius II (1)
Honorius (VI)
Arcadius (VI)
Theodosius II (II) Honorius (VII)
Theodosius II (IIT) Honorius VIII
Constantine III (in Gaul)
Theodosius II (IV)
Theodosius II (V) Honorius IX
Constantius (I)
Theodosius II (VI) Honorius (X)
Theodosius II (VII)
Honorius (XI) Constantius (IT)
Theodosius II (VIII) Honorius (XII)
Theodosius II (IX) Constantius III (IIT)
Theodosius II (X) Honorius (XIII)
Theodosius II (XI) Valentinian III (I), John (in Italy)
Theodosius II (XII) Valentinian III (II)
Theodosius II (XIII) Valentinian III (III)
Theodosius II (XIV)
Theodosius II (XV) Valentinian III (IV)
Theodosius II (XVI)
439
440
44]
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
47]
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
IMPERIAL CONSULSHIPS 275
Theodosius II (XVII)
Theodosius II (XVIII)
Marcian
Anthemius (1)
Leo I (1)
Leo I (II)
Basiliscus (1)
Leo I (III)
Zeno (1)
Leo I (IV)
Leo I (V)
Leo II
Zeno (II)
Basiliscus (II)
Zeno (IIT)
Valentinian III (V)
Valentinian III (VI)
Valentinian III (VII)
Valentinian III (VIII)
Avitus
Majorian
Severus III
Anthemius (II)
Zeno did not reassume the consulship after 479, and the next emperor to hold the office
was Anastasius I in 492.
APPENDIX 2
Abbreviations in Coin Legends
The abbreviations on coins of the period covered by this volume are far fewer than those
on early imperial coins, of which a useful (if incomplete) list is provided by Bernhart (1926,
378-88).
ALE
AVG, AVC
AVGG(GG)
BA
C
CL
CM
COM(OB)
CON, CONS
CONOB
COS
DN
€
F
FP
H
IMP
M
MVL(T)
N
N, NIC
Alexandria
Augustus, Augusta. The correct form is with a G, but this was in
many mints replaced by a simple C.
Augusti. In the late fourth and early fifth century, the number of G’s
(or C’s) varied according to the number of associated August,
but later two or three G’s are no more than a simple plural.
Empresses (Augustae) are not included in the total. Sometimes
the A appears in the plural (e.g., AAVGG), in accordance with
correct epigraphical usage, but this is rare and does not occur
after the late fourth century.
Barcinona (Barcelona), in the formula SMBA (under Maximus).
Caesar. Also, at Trier, sometimes used for capzitalis instead of prima to
signify the first officina.
Claudius
Caput Mundi (on some coins of Rome).
Comes (obryziacus), a high treasury official responsible for the issue of
gold for minting.
Constantinopolis (Constantinople)
Constantinopolis and obryziatum, a conflation of the place name with
the technical term (obryzum) for refined gold.
Consul
Dominus noster, Domina nostra, a customary imperial title.
Greek numeral (5) used at Rome and sometimes at Arles to identify
the fifth officina, since Q was already used for 4.
Felix, “fortunate,” in the formula PF (q.v.).
Variant of PF (q.v.) on coins of Glycerius.
Heraclea
Imperator, “emperor,” used only in the formulae JMP XXXXII and
IMP XXXXIIII on two issues of solidi of Theodosius II,
meaning he had been emperor 42 or 44 years.
Moneta, “mint” in the formula SM (q.v.)
Multis, “many,” in the formula MVLT(is) VOT(is)
Noster, nostra, in the formula DN.
Nicomedia
276
NOV CAES
OFF
ORV TERRAR
P
PER(P)
PF
PLA(C)
PS
Q
S
SEN or SENPER AVG
SM
T
TERRAR
V
VOT V, X, etc.
ABBREVIATIONS IN COIN LEGENDS 277
nobilissimus Caesar
officina, used on some AE of Rome with an accompanying numeral.
Orbis terrarum, in the formula GLOR(ia) ORV(is) TERRAR(um),
“Glory of the world.”
Prima (officina), used at Rome
Perpetuus
Pius felix (not perpetuus felix; see above, p. 77). See also FP.
Placidus, praenomen of Valentinian III.
pusulatum, a technical term for refined silver, used in conjunction
with the abbreviation of a place name, e.g., RMPS
quarta (officina)
secunda (officina)
semper augustus, only on large AE of Zeno.
Sacra moneta
tertia (officina)
terrarum (orbis). See ORV TERRAR
quinquennalia, used with vota.
votis quinquennalibus, decennalibus, etc.
APPENDIX 3
Gold Coin Hoards
The list is in alphabetical order. There is a chronological listing in Chapter 1, Section D (1).
The Scandinavian hoards of the period (see above, p. 15) are not included, since they are of
little help over dating.
ABRITUS (Razgrad, Bulgaria), ca. 485. The systematic excavation of this Roman city in south-
eastern Bulgaria, 2 km east of Razgrad, brought to light in 1971 a large and exceptionally im-
portant hoard of 835 solidi of the fifth century. Its detailed publication by D. Vladimirova-
Aladjova is expected for the second volume of the excavation reports—the first, by T. Ivanov
(1980) is devoted to the topography and fortifications of the city—but a preliminary account is
given by Stojanov (1982) and much information on its contents is scattered throughout the
footnotes to MJRB. The following rulers are represented, the coins being ones of Constanti-
nople unless another mint is indicated: Theodosius II (5), Pulcheria (1), Marcian (56), Leo I
(283 + 13 Thessalonica), Verina (4), Zeno (437), Basiliscus (23 + 1 Thessalonica), Basiliscus and
Marcus (10), Leontius (1 Antioch), and Julius Nepos (1 Arles). Particularly notable are the pres-
ence of the solidi of Verina, Leontius, and Julius Nepos, in the two latter cases from mints remote
from the place of finding, and the small number from Thessalonica, despite the Balkan origin
of the hoard, though some of Zeno may appear when a full description of the contents is avail-
able.
AQUILEIA (Italy), 425/30. A small hoard of 9 solidi, discovered in 1978, has been described by
Gorini (1979a, 429-31; also 1979b). The coins are as follows:
Honorius. Ravenna, as 735—6, 2
Theodosius II. Constantinople.
Concordia type, as 313-18, l
Vot XX type, without star, as 350, l
Valentinian III. Emperor and serpent type.
Rome (RM/COMOB), as 849-50, 4
Ravenna (RV/COMOB), as 841-4, ]
ARCAY (France, dép. Cher), ca. 430? A hoard of 16 solidi of Valentinian III in a lead roll came
to light in 1969 during the plowing of a field at Argay, 15 km south of Bourges in central France.
Fifteen of the coins were acquired for the museum of Bourges (Cothenet and Lafaurie 1969).
All have the RV mint-mark of Ravenna, and 12, closely die-linked, are of the variety with a
crown above the emperor's head on the obverse (as 844). This type was widely imitated in Gaul,
often in poor-quality gold, and the attribution of the coins, and indeed whether any of those
with a crown should be ascribed to Ravenna, or whether they were perhaps minted at Trier, have
been much debated (see above, p. 236). It has usually been assumed that this variety was struck
near the end of Valentinian III's reign, which would put the hoard ca. 450, but if, as seems
278
GOLD COIN HOARDS 279
probable, it was really struck at the beginning, the hoard could well date from ca. 430.
BEILEN (Netherlands, prov. Drenthe), ca. 398. A hoard consisting of five gold necklets, a gold
bracelet, and 22 solidi of the period 364—95 (Zadoks-Josephus Jitta 1954). To these can be added
a further necklet and solidus found in the last century on the same site that probably formed
part of the original hoard. The necklet was melted down and the coin (of Valentinian I) has
disappeared, but a detailed description survives (Feltz 1845). The four latest coins, minted in
Honorius’ name at Milan from 393 onward, are in virtually mint condition. The absence of
corresponding coins of Theodosius and Arcadius suggested to Zadoks-Josephus Jitta that the
coins came from a distribution made soon after Theodosius’ death and deliberately limited to
coins of the new sovereign.
BINA (Czechoslovakia), ca. 445 (Table 43). A pot hoard of 108 solidi (1% Roman lbs.), mainly
of Valentinian III and Theodosius II, found in 1961 during the excavation of the remains of an
ancient building at Bina, near Nové Zamky in southern Slovakia. There is an admirably detailed
and illustrated description by Kolnikova (1968). The contents of the hoard are very close to
those of Szikancs, with a few rarities present in one and absent from the other, but it is probably
slightly earlier in date, for it contains only three specimens of the huge IMP XXXXII issue that
are the latest element in it. The absence from it of Theodosius’ Virtus Exerciti type, with the
TABLE 43
The Bina 1961 Hoard, ca. 445
Arcadius Emp. spurning captive (MD/COMOB) T29
Honorius Cpolis seated (CCB, no star) C 3; as 745-50
Emp. spurning captive (MD/COMOB) C 44; as 712-14
Emp. spurning captive (RV/COMOB) C 44; as 735-6
Placidia Cross and Victory (RM/COMOB) C 13; as 826
Theod. II | CONCORDIA AVCC Cpolis seated T 1-9; as 313-18
VOT XX Cross and Victory (no star) T 40-6; as 350-3
Theod. and Val. (seated) T 25-32; as 374-6
GLOR ORVIS TERRAR T 10-15; as 359-60
Emp. standing
GLOR ORVIS TERRAR
Emp. standing (TESOB)
VOT XXX Cpolis seated
VOT XXX Cpolis (TESOB)
IMP XXXXII Cpolis seated
VOT XXX Cpolis seated
Theod. and Val. seated
Emp. and serpent (RV/COMOB)
Emp. and serpent (RM/COMOB)
Emp. and serpent (MD/COMOB)
Consular, VOT X (RM)
Consular, VOT X (RV)
Honoria Cross and Victory (RV)
Imitations | Theod., Glor. Orvis Terrar. type
Nore NONK ON —
no
T 16; as 364-9
T 49-58; as 379-87
T-;R179
T 18-24; as 410-27
T 87; as 457-8
C 9; as 836-8
C 19; as 841-3
C 19; as 849-50
C 19; as 854
C 41; as 856
C 41
C 1; as 866
ho — NOR — OF DD DK OF ND
280 APPENDIX 3
TABLE 44
The Butera 1939 Hoard, ca. 455
Rulerand Description | Mimt_| Goins | Reference |
Theodosius II
CONCORDIA AVGG. Cpolis seated S 2; as 313-18
facing
VOT XXX MVLT XXXX Cpolis seated S 14; as 379-87
left
IMP XXXXII COS XVII. As last. S 6; as 410-27
Galla Placidia
VOT XXX MVLT XXXX Cpolis seated C11
Valentinian III
VICTORIA AVGGG Emp. w. foot on C 19; as 841-3
serpent C 19; as 849-50
Marcian
VICTORIA AVGGG Cross and Victory S 4; as 476-84
Pulcheria
As last S 3; as 443
emperor dragging a captive, is important in showing that this cannot belong to the late 430s but
must be of the late 440s and the last issue of the reign.
BRAONE (Italy), ca. 495/500. A pot hoard of 9 solidi discovered in 1957 in a tomb that came to
light during work on a new water supply at Braone, in the Val Caménica north of Brescia, 20
km south of Edolo. They are fully described and illustrated by Bonafini (1959). The coins are
of Leo (4 of CP, off. T, S, ©, 1), Zeno (2: 1 of CP, off. [; 1 of Milan), and Anastasius (2 of CP, off.
A, S; 1 apparently Italian with A and COMOB). The number of coins of Leo and Zeno places
the date of deposit early in Anastasius’ reign.
BUTERA (Sicily), ca. 455 (Table 44). This pot hoard of solidi was found in 1939 during building
work on a private estate near Butera, 15 km northwest of Gela in southern Sicily. Out of an
original 52 coins, 41 were recovered and eventually published (Griffo 1956). The hoard is almost
entirely Eastern in its composition, three-quarters of the contents being common types of Theo-
dosius II but with a surprising gap in his coins of the 420s. The only rarity, a Constantinopolitan
solidus of Galla Placidia, presents a problem, for the obverse and reverse of the illustration of
the coin (Griffo 1956, pl. x.2) do not match and the obverse is that of a modern forgery, unsat-
isfactory in style and lettering and with GALLA included in the legend, a feature never found
on coins struck in her name at Constantinople (above, p. 230). The explanation is apparently
the recutting of the obverse to create a rarer coin, so that the presence of one of Galla Placidia
in the hoard must be regarded as doubtful.
CANNITELLO (Italy, Calabria), ca. 455. A pot hoard, allegedly of ca. 50 solidi, found during
road work in 1884 and quickly dispersed, only 6 coins ending up in the local museum of Reggio
Calabria (A. M. Di Lorenzo in Notizie degli Scavi 1885, 49, 208-9). The five described were 3 of
GOLD COIN HOARDS 281
Valentinian III (Emperor-and-serpent type), one of Theodosius II (VOT XXX MVLT XXXXB),
and one of Marcian (off. H).
CERTOSA DI PAVIA (Italy), ? ca. 414. A find (Patroni 1911, misleadingly under the heading
Carpignano) of 3 small pieces of jewelry and 17 gold coins of Honorius found near the railway
station of the Certosa di Pavia. There were 3 solidi of Milan of the Emperor-spurning-captive
type (C 43), 7 of Ravenna of the same type, 3 of Ravenna of the Emperor-with-foot-on-lion type
(C 44), and 4 tremisses of the Victory type (C 47, mint not stated). Patroni suggests 408 as the
date of loss, since Pavia was involved in the troubles leading to the death of Stilicho, but it is
unlikely that a hoard so early would contain no coins of Arcadius or so many of Ravenna. Un-
fortunately the date of the rare Ravenna type is unknown; this and the Tiber hoard of 1880 are
the only hoards recorded as containing it. If the date is 413, as suggested in the text (above, p.
201), the hoard should be of ca. 414.
CHAPIPI (northwest Spain), 408/11. This hoard, composed of a small gold ring, 11 solidi, and
2 tremisses, was found in a cave called Chapipi in the village of Coalla, near Oviedo, in 1934.
One coin has disappeared, but there is a full description of the remaining twelve by Escortell
(1973) (illus. also in Lafaurie 1958, pl. 10). Apart from an early solidus of Theodosius I of 383/
8, the coins all belong to the 390s and the early years of the fifth century, the latest being a
solidus of Constantine III and the occasion of burial being probably the fighting in Spain during
this usurper’s attempt to conquer the country. The coins are now on display in the archaeological
museum of Oviedo (Escortell 1974, 75). They are as follows:
Theodosius I. Constantinople. Solidus 378/83. RIC 1X.223/43b.
Arcadius. Constantinople. Solidus, off. Z, 395/402. As 215.
Arcadius. Constantinople. Tremissis. As 251, but without star.
Arcadius. Milan. Solidus, 394/402. As 265-7.
Honorius. Milan. Solidus, 394/402. As 712-14.
Milan. Tremissis, 394/402. As 715.
Rome. Solidus, 404. As 723-5.
Thessalonica. Solidus with three-quarter facing bust, COMOB, and star in field, struck
ca. 403. As 767, but with star in field; cf. 307, of Theodosius II).
Constantine III. Lyon. Solidus with GGGG and LD/COMOB (Bastien 1987a, no. 244). As
792.
CHECY (France, dép. Loiret), 407/8. A group of 24 Italian solidi of the same type (emperor
spurning captive) bearing the names of Honorius (Milan 9, Ravenna 6, Rome 3) and Arcadius
(Milan 5, Rome 1) found with a few silver objects (belt buckle, etc.) during work on the bed of
the Loire and evidently forming part of a single hoard. The coins can be dated ca. 400/ca. 406
and were probably lost in 407/8, at the time of the great German invasion of Gaul. The detailed
study by Lafaurie (1958) goes far beyond the dating of the solidi actually in the hoard, making
it a mine of information on late fourth- and early fifth-century coinage.
CHERCHEL (Algeria), ca. 420. A hoard of solidi found in 1927 during construction work and
quickly dispersed, so that details of only 26 coins out of perhaps a hundred are now available
(Salama 1988). The coins are all of Honorius and nearly all (24) of Ravenna of the regular type
(as 735-6), the others being one each of Milan (as 712-14) and Constantinople (as 764, but of
282 APPENDIX 3
officina I and with a star in the field). Salama dates the last coin 406/7 and the burial shortly
afterward on the ground that the coins of Ravenna are all early in style, but the absence of any
coins of Theodosius I or Arcadius, and the high proportion of coins of Ravenna in relation to
those of Milan, point rather to a date of burial much nearer the end of Honorius’ reign.
COMBERTAULT (France, dép. Céte-d’Or), 456/7. A pot hoard of several hundred solidi found
in 1803 at Combertault, 6 km southeast of Beaune, and quickly dispersed. Details of 95 solidi
and a plated tremissis have survived in the form of a list of 15 coins drawn up by a local antiquary
in 1805 and the record of the auction of 81 coins in 1806, permitting a reconstruction of this
part of its contents by Lafaurie (1984). The list gives the legends of the coins it covers, which in
most cases allows one to infer their types, and Lafaurie summarizes the contents of the 95 solidi
as follows: Arcadius 3 (at least 1 RV), Honorius 8 (at least 1 RV), Theodosius II 3 (2 Constanti-
nople, 1 RV), Honorius 8 (at least 1 RV), Theodosius II 3 (2 Constantinople, 1 RV), Pulcheria
2, Valentinian III (at least 3 RV and one each MD and RM), Marcian 1 (Constantinople), and
Avitus 6 (at least 1 AR and 2 MD). The presence of so many coins of Avitus (455-6) and the
absence of any of Majorian (457—61), though these are common in Gaul, date the hoard to 456/
7. Lafaurie’s study includes a table of the contents of eight French hoards of the second half of
the fifth century.
COMISO (Sicily), ca. 430/5 (Table 45). A hoard of about 1,100 solidi found in 1936 during
building work on private property at Comiso, a small town in southern Sicily 7 miles west of
Ragusa. Over 200 were dispersed and never recovered, but the majority were divided equally
between the representatives of the state on the one hand and the finder and the owner of the
property on the other, care being taken to ensure that emperors, types, and mints were shared
equally so that the initial proportions of the hoard were preserved. All coins represented by only
a single specimen, notably the solidus of Honoria, were assigned to the public share. The 423
coins now in the museum of Syracuse were studied in detail by Panvini (1953), his description
superseding the brief notices in Notizie degh Scavi (1937, 471, and 1950, 336-7 [F. Stanganelli]).
The hoard was buried early in the reign of Valentinian III, for three-quarters of the coins (303
out of 423) are of Honorius and most (337) are of the mint of Ravenna, the others being of
Milan (33), Rome (31), Constantinople (21), and Thessalonica (1). Since the contents are impor-
tant for the dating of the coinage of both Theodosius II and Valentinian III, they are summa-
rized in Table 45.
The latest coins are the two VOT XXX solidi of Theodosius II of 430, and all others that
can be specifically dated—all coins of Theodosius I, Arcadius, Honorius, Pulcheria, Placidia,
and at least 30 of those of Theodosius II and 7 of those of Valentinian II1I—are of the 420s or
earlier. Panvini (1953, 436) nonetheless dated the hoard to the 450s, since it included four coins
of Valentinian III of Milan, and he accepted Ulrich-Bansa’s dating of the reopening of this mint
to 452. Such a date is difficult to believe. Coins of the 440s, notably those of the very common
IMP XXXXII issue, are conspicuously absent, and in a hoard of the 450s the coins of Valentinian
III should greatly outnumber ones of Honorius, while at Comiso the reverse is the case. The
hoard can be confidently attributed to the years 430/5. It is consequently important for dating
the Gloria orvis terrarum coinage of Theodosius II (above, p. 143) and the solidi of Honoria
(above, p. 242) as well as for showing that the resumption of minting at Milan cannot be placed
as late as the 440s, as Ulrich-Bansa had supposed prior to the discovery of John’s solidus of the
mint (above, p. 63).
GOLD COIN HOARDS 283
TABLE 45
The Comiso 1936 Hoard, ca. 430/5
Theod. I Cpolis seated (GGG-) ; RIC IX.188/64b
Arcadius Emp. spurning captive (MD/COMOB) T 29; as 265-7
Emp. spurning captive (RV/COMOB) T 30; as 272
Emp. spurning captive (RM/COMOB) T—; as 269
Honorius_ | Cpolis seated (CCI, no star in field) C 3; as 747
Cpolis seated (CC, star in field) C 3; as 776-80
Emp. spurning captive (MD/COMOB) C 44; as 712-14
Emp. spurning captive (RV/COMOB) C 44; as 735-6
Emp. spurning captive (RV/COMOB;:) C 44
Emp. spurning captive (RM/COMOB) C 44; as 723-5
Cpolis seated (CC, off., CONOB) T 1-9; as 313-18
VOT XxX, Cross and Victory T 40-8; as 350—5
Theod. and Val. (standing) T 33-6; as 370-3
Theod. and Val. (seated) T 25-32;
as 374-6
GLORORVI STERRAR T 10-15;
Emp. standing as 359-60
VOT XXX, Cpolis seated T 49-58;
as 379-87
Emp. spurning captive (RV/COMOB) T 59; as 349
Pulcheria Victory writing on shield T 31; as 436
Placidia VOT XxX, Victory and cross C 13; as 826
(RM/COMOB)
Val. II Emp. spurning captive (RV/COMOB) C 23; as 835
Theod. and Val. (seated) C 9; as 836-8
Emp. and serpent (RV/COMOB) C 19; as 841-3
Emp. and serpent (RM/COMOB) C 19; as 849-50
Emp. and serpent (MD/COMOB) C 19; as 854
Honoria Cross and Victory (RV/COMOB) C 1; as 866
CORBRIDGE (England, Northumberland), 384/5. A hoard of 48 solidi of the two decades 364/
85, mainly of the mint of Trier (Grueber 1913, superseding the short account of Craster 1912,
275-8, 309-12). It ends with 13 coins of Maximus and so was buried 384/5, after Arcadius’
accession. It contains no coins struck in his name, reflecting Maximus’ resolute ignoring of his
young Eastern colleague, and is included here because of its relevance to the classification of the
coinage of the 370s and early 380s.
DORTMUND (northwest Germany), 407/8. This pot hoard, the largest hoard of Roman gold
coins from Germany beyond the imperial frontier, was found in 1907 and is now in the Dort-
mund Museum. It was thought to consist initially of 430 solidi, mainly of the second half of the
fourth century, plus 16 somewhat fragmentary silver coins, all contemporary Germanic imita-
tions, and 3 gold necklets, but a further 13 solidi were found as a result of further digging and
are presumed to have made part of the hoard. There is a detailed description by Regling (1908,
with Nachtrag), all the types and over fifty of the actual coins being illustrated, to which should
284 APPENDIX 3
be added the brochure accompanying an exhibition in 1957 (Albrecht 1957) and the summary
by B. Korzus (in FMRD VI.5 [1972], 39-54, no. 5020). The contents end with four Ravenna
solidi of Honorius (as against 55 of Milan), a Constantinopolitan solidus of Honorius struck in
402 (with CCC, i.e., after the association of Theodosius II, but without a star in the field), and
three Lyon solidi of Constantine III (with GGGG). The absence of any coins of Constantine III
with GGG dates the hoard to 407/8. The high proportion of late fourth-century coins provides
evidence of the great number of Roman solidi that in that period reached the Germanic world,
in some measure as a result of the Visigothic victory at Adrianople in 378.
FANO (Italy, prov. Marche), ca. 435/40? (Table 46). A pot hoard of 17 AV and 25 AR that was
found in 1956 during building work in the central city area and acquired by the Museo Nazion-
ale of Ancona. It is exceptional in including coins of both precious metals and by the gold
consisting almost entirely of semisses and tremisses, suggesting that fractional gold and silver
played a larger part in the circulating medium than one would assume from most hoard con-
tents. The brief published summary (Annibaldi 1959) unfortunately does not give the mints, so
it would be pointless to reproduce it in detail, but the denominational pattern is of interest (Table
46). The date of burial should be post-435, if the numerals on the semissis of Valentinian III
(VOT/X/MVLT/XX) are to be taken literally, but the general contents suggest a date in the late
420s.
TABLE 46
Denominational Pattern of the Fano 1956 Hoard, ca. 435/40?
Half-
Valentinian I (or III?)
Theodosius I (or II?)
Honorius
John
Placidia
Valentinian III
FURFOOZ (Belgium, prov. Namur), 425/30? A small hoard whose contents are only partially
known and which is more interesting for some of the coins it includes (Constantine III 4, John
1, Valentinian III 3) than for any light it can throw on dating (Thirion 1965; 1967, no. 3).
GRAVISCA (Italy, prov. Lazio), ca. 400/10. A hoard of 174 solidi was discovered during the
excavation of the ancient Gravisca, by Porto Clementino on the coast southwest of ‘Tarquinia.
The finding is noted by M. Torelli in Notizie degli Scavi (1971, 220), and there is a summary list
of contents, but without mints or types, in an exhibition catalogue of 1970 (Torelli 1970, 74).
The contents are given as Valentinian I (26), Valentinian II (29), Theodosius I (29), Arcadius
(39), and Honorius (51), and a fuller publication is highly desirable.
GOLD COIN HOARDS 285
GROSS BODUNGEN (Germany, close to the former East-West frontier between Gottingen and
Nordhausen), 410/20. A hoard of Hacksilber that included 21 gold coins was found in 1936 when
plowing a field. The hoard is the subject of an excellent monograph, all the coins being illus-
trated (Griinhagen 1954, 2—5 and pl. 1). Apart from a mounted and somewhat worn medallion
of Magnentius, the coins are all of the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century,
ending with 5 solidi of Arcadius (all Milan), 7 of Honorius (3 Milan, 4 Ravenna), and 2 of
Constantine III (1 Trier, 1 Lyon). The probable date of burial is between 410 and 420.
HORVAT RIMMON I (Israel, 40 km southeast of Gaza), ca. 500. A pot hoard found in 1971 of
12 gold coins of Valentinian I (2 sol.), Leo I (1 sem., 2 trem.), Zeno (1 sol., 1 trem.), and Anas-
tasius I (1 sem., 4 trem.). Full details, with illustrations, are published by Kloner and Mindel
(1981, 60—4). The individual contents are of little importance, but, like the next hoard, it is
unusual in containing fractional gold. The value of the contents adds up to 6 sol. 1 trem., that
is, just over an ounce of gold, the tremissis perhaps to compensate for the wear on the older
coins, and the whole probably represents a single gift to the authorities of the synagogue. The
FANO hoard (q.v.) was similar in its denominational mixture, but being half a century earlier it
included silver as well as gold coins.
HORVAT RIMMON II (Israel), ca. 500. A similar hoard found at the same time in a separate
container close to the first and containing 35 coins as follows: Valentinian I (1 sol.), Theodosius
II (1 sem.), Marcian (1 trem.), Leo I (5 trem.), Leo II and Zeno (1 sem.), Basiliscus (1 trem.),
Zeno (4 sem., 10 trem.), and Anastasius I (3 sem., 8 trem.). Published by Kloner and Mindel
(1981, 64-8). The semissis of Leo II and Zeno is a great rarity. The value of the coins was almost
exactly double that of the preceding hoard, equaling 11 5/6th solidi or just under 2 oz. of gold.
IZENAVE (France, dép. Ain), ca. 460? The furniture of two Frankish graves discovered in 1911
during the plowing of a field at Izenave, southeast of Bourg-en-Bresse not far from the Swiss
frontier, included (Chanel 1912, 273—4; Lafaurie 1964a, 201, no. 19) a solidus of Theodosius
II (VOT XXX type, no off. numeral), one tremissis each of Valentinian III and Majorian, and
two small silver coins of Majorian having as reverse type a Victory left with a long cross, AG in
the left field, and two stars in the exergue (C 10; see above, p. 252). Grave-finds are often hard
to date, and this could be any time between 460 and the end of the fifth century, but the presence
of three coins of Majorian (457-61) suggests that it belongs to his reign.
IZMIT (Turkey), 480/90. A hoard of 55 solidi found in 1939 during the preparation of a factory
site near the walls of Izmit, the ancient Nicomedia. The coins are now in the Archaeological
Museum at Istanbul and have been well published (Ebcioglu 1966). The great majority are of
Zeno, with a remarkable predominance of coins from Officina , and are as follows:
1-3. Theodosius II. VOT XXX type, as 379-87; off. I’, A, H.
4 Valentinian II]. IMP XXXXII type, as 862; no off. numeral.
5 Marcian. As 477—84; off. Z.
6-7 Leo I. Usual type, as 516-29; off. A, Z.
8 Leo II and Zeno. Seated-figures type, as 600-3; off. I.
9-55 Zeno. Usual type, as 629-43; off. A (3), A (1), H (2), @ (31), 1 (10).
286 APPENDIX 3
JATRUS, see KRIVINA.
JEREZ DE LA FRONTERA (Spain, prov. Cadiz), ca. 410. A hoard of 35 solidi of Arcadius and
Honorius found in 1982. The coins are all of the Emperor-spurning-captive type, with distri-
bution as follows:
Constantinople (SM/COMOB): Arcadius 2 (as 161-2).
Milan (MD/CONOB): Arcadius 11 (as 265-7), Honorius 5 (as 712-14).
Ravenna (RV/CONOB): Arcadius 7 (as 272), Honorius 10 (as 735-6).
The presence of the SM coins and the relatively high proportion of coins of Milan as against
Ravenna point to a date of burial not many years after the opening of the mint of Ravenna,
perhaps ca. 410.
KRIVINA (Bulgaria), ca. 395. A joint Bulgarian-East German archaeological excavation of the
late Roman fort of Jatrus near the village of Krivina in north Bulgaria discovered a small hoard
of eight late fourth-century solidi of which only a summary account (Bottger 1979) is available
at the time of writing. They consisted of 2 of Valentinian II, 4 of Theodosius I, and lL each of
Arcadius and Honorius of 393/5, the only one illustrated being an SM issue of Arcadius (as
161-2).
LONRAY (France, dép. Orne), ca. 480? A hoard of 44 coins found in 1811 at Lonray, 4 km
northwest of Alencon in southern Normandy. The identity of only 7 of the coins has been pre-
served (Lafaurie 1984, 151-2, based on a newspaper account of 20 March 1811), and the time
spread of these is so large—2 of Honorius, 1 each of Theodosius II, Valentinian III, Severus
III, Julius Nepos, and Zeno—as to render it of little value to the numismatist.
MAINZ (Germany), ca. 410. A hoard of 11 solidi found in 1955 during digging at the junction
of the Grebenstrasse and the Domstrasse (FMRD IV.1 [1960], 339, no. 1171). The identity of
one coin, in private possession, is unknown; the others, now in the Altertumsmuseum Mainz,
are as follows:
Valentinian I. Antioch (1). RIC 1X.272/2a.
Valens. Antioch (1). RIC 272/2d.
Theodosius I. Constantinople (SM/CONOB,; 1). RIC 162/15a.
Arcadius. Thessalonica (1). RIC 184/50b var. (pearl diadem).
Milan (1). RIC 84/35b (as 265-7).
Ravenna (1). S 1.103.18 (as 272).
Honorius. Constantinople (SM/CONOB; 1). RIC 162/15d (as 693-6).
Milan (1). RIC 84/35c (as 712-14).
Ravenna (1). C 44 (as 735-6).
Constantine III. Lyon. C 5; Bastien 1987a, no. 244 (GGGG, LD/COMOB, as 792).
MENZELEN (northwest Germany), ca. 413 (Table 47). A hoard of 208 coins, mainly solidi, was
discovered in 1754 on the Menzeler Heide between Menzelen and Alpen southwest of Wesel
and not far from the lower Rhine. A detailed contemporary description that has survived in
manuscript has permitted its reconstruction, with only a few details left uncertain (Kaiser-Raiss
and Kliissendorf 1984). Apart from six coins of the early Empire, the contents are solidi of the
late fourth and early fifth centuries, ending with ones of Jovinus (411-13) under whom the
hoard was probably buried. It is interesting as showing how few of Honorius’ coins were still
reaching northern Gaul in the period after the opening of the mint of Ravenna in 402. A sum-
GOLD COIN HOARDS 287
TABLE 47
The Menzelen 1754 Hoard, ca. 413
Mints are abbreviated as follows: AQ = Aquileia; AR = Arles; CP = Constantinople (incl.
SM coins); LD = Lyon; MD = Milan; RM = Rome; RV = Ravenna; TR = Trier; TES =
Thessalonica; Unc. = Uncertain. A few coins are insufficiently described for mint identification,
and some of the earlier coins with COM may be Thessalonica, not Milan.
Number of Specimens
SOOO OMO once)
Early Empire
Valentinian I
(364—75)
Valens (364-78)
Gratian (367-82)
Valentinian II
(375-92)
Theodosius I
(379-95)
Eugenius
(393-4)
Arcadius
(383-408)
Honorius
(393-423)
Constantine III
(407-11)
Priscus Attalus
(409-10)
Jovinus
(411-13)
Unspecified
mary of its contents under rulers and mints is set out in Table 47, but too many of the details of
the forms of the mint-marks are unconfirmed from elsewhere for an analysis of these to be
useful.
MIDLUM (Netherlands, prov. Friesland), ca. 530. A hoard of 13 solidi found in an ancient
artificial mound (terp) at Midlum, near Harlingen, in Friesland. It included 2 coins of Marcian
and 8 of Leo, after which there is a gap before two of Anastasius I (one Italian) and one of
Justinian (Boeles 1951, 264; coins listed and described on pp. 503-5, nos. 13-22, 29-30, 43;
the 12 now in Fries Museum are discussed and illustrated by Zadoks-Josephus Jitta 1960). The
Marcian/Leo group evidently forms a distinct element, put together in the 460s or 470s, and are
mainly interesting because five of the coins of Leo are from a single officina, the tenth.
NONANTOLA (Italy) ca. 430. A hoard found at Nonantola, 8 km north northeast of Modena,
288 APPENDIX 3
sometime before 1887 of which we know only (Notizie degli Scavi 1887, 56) that it contained 8
solidi of Honorius, 3 of Theodosius II, and | of Valentinian III, with no information as to types.
Date of deposit must be soon after 425 to judge by the preponderance of coins of Honorius.
PARMA (Italy), 395/400? A pot hoard of 265 gold coins, mainly solidi, recovered entire and now
in the local museum. They are described in detail, but far from accurately, by Montanari (1964).
They can be summarized as Constantius II (1), Valens (7), Gratian (16), Valentinian II (64),
Maximus (3), Eugenius (4), Theodosius I (80), Arcadius (52), and Honorius (38). Those of Ar-
cadius are as follows:
(1) Two emperors seated: 2 with COM (as 61), 6 with MD.
(2) Cpolis holding shield with VOT/V/MVL/X: 7 with CONOB (as 76-8), 1 with MDOB.
(3) Emperor spurning captive: 6 with SM (as 161-2), 13 with MD (as 265-7).
(4) Cpolis seated: 17 (as 207-17).
Those of Honorius are:
(1) Emperor spurning captive: 9 with SM (as 691-6), 28 with MD (as 712-14).
(2) Victory advancing left with wreath and palm, MD in field, COMOB in exergue. Appar-
ently a tremissis (as UB pl. 1v.35, Theodosius I, but this has COM).
The date of burial is probably between 395 and 400, for nos. 202-18 in the description can
scarcely be anything but the type of 207-17, though the description implies that the bust is a
profile one and “Roma” is said to hold a globe, not a globe surmounted by a Victory.
POITOU (France), ca. 384. A hoard of 28 solidi and two gold medallions (double solidi) that
was found in 1865 somewhere in Poitou and acquired by the Paris dealers Rollin and Feuardent.
A summary of its contents was published by Charles Robert, who acquired the medallions (Rob-
ert 1866). The coins were mainly of Valentinian I (11 solidi, 1 medallion) and Valens (14 solidi,
1 medallion), but there were 2 of Gratian, 2 of Valentinian II, a Constantinopolitan one (off. B)
of Arcadius with legend ending CCC and a Victory inscribing VOT/V/MVL/X on a shield (RIC
IX.231/70c), and apparently none of Magnus Maximus. The last two considerations date the
hoard to ca. 384.
RADOSTOWO (Poland), ca. 480. A hoard of 22 solidi and some jewelry found (in 1880?) at
Radostowo, formerly Rathstube in West Prussia near Danzig, and very inadequately published
by Friedlander (1880; cf. also Kunisz 1973, 94-5, no. 129) on the ground that “einer Beschrei-
bung bedarf es nicht, die Miinzen sind sammtlich wohlbekannt.” He lists the coins as Theodosius
II (9), Valentinian III (1), Anthemius (1, type as 903-8), Leo I (8, one a consular coin of Thes-
salonica), Leo II and Zeno (1, type as 600-3), Basiliscus (1), Julius Nepos (1, of Arles). Many of
the coins belong to the 470s, and its contents have obvious analogies with those of the Tournai
hoard of 481, including the presence of both Eastern and Western rarities of about the same
date.
RAZGRAD (Bulgaria), see ABRITUS.
REGGIO EMILIA (Italy), 489/93. A hoard of Ostrogothic gold jewelry, 60 solidi, and other
objects found unexpectedly in 1957 during the excavation of the remains of an early Roman
building in the center of Reggio. Jewelry and coins were lavishly published, with admirable
GOLD COIN HOARDS 289
promptitude, all the coins being illustrated (Degani 1959, esp. 31-4, 43-53, and pls. 9-14;
Bierbrauer 1975, 302-19). The solidi were of Marcian (3), Leo I (37), Leo II and Zeno (1),
Basiliscus and Marcus (1), Zeno and the Caesar Leo (1), and Zeno alone (17). All but 4 were of
Constantinople, the exceptions being one of Thessalonica (Leo I, normal type) and three of
Ravenna (Zeno). The probable date of concealment is 489/93, during the war between Theo-
deric and Odovacar, the predominance of Constantinopolitan solidi indicating that the owner
of the treasure had arrived from the Balkans.
ROME (Italy, bed of the Tiber), ca. 415/20. A dispersed hoard of 70 solidi (?originally a pound
of gold) of Honorius and Arcadius found in 1880 during work on the Tiber embankments and
bed near the demolished Ponte Emilio. Details are available of the 69 now in the Museo Nazion-
ale (Balbi 1987). One coin of Ravenna belonged to the rare group showing Honorius with a lion
at his feet (as 742); the others are all of the ordinary type (emperor spurning captive) with mint
distribution as follows:
Honorius 54 (Milan 5, Rome 33, Ravenna 16).
Arcadius 14 (Milan 5, Rome 5, Ravenna 4).
The absence of coins of Theodosius I and the relative proportions of Honorius’ coins of
Milan and Ravenna point to a date of burial appreciably after 402/4, probably in the decade
410/20. It consequently throws no direct light on the date of the 742 type, but is quite compatible
with the date 413 suggested in the text (above, p. 201). If this date is correct for the coin, that
of the burial of the hoard would be ca. 415/20.
ROME (Italy, Casa delle Vestali), 472? A hoard of 397 solidi that came to light in 1899 during
Giacomo Boni’s excavation of the House of the Vestal Virgins in the Foro Romano. The list
of contents published by Boni (1899) is now superseded by the detailed study and catalogue of
Ungaro (1985), illustrating all the coins and discussing die-relationships and many details of
design and lettering. The hoard is above all important for the coinage of Anthemius, but since
almost none of his coins other than ones of Rome were present, it is less enlightening than might
have been hoped. It dates from the reign of Anthemius and perhaps from 472, when the city
was captured and sacked by Ricimer. The contents are as follows:
Constantius II (Nicomedia 1) l
Valentinian III (Rome 2, Ravenna 5) 7
Marcian (Constantinople 8) 8
Leo I (Constantinople 24) 24
Severus III (Rome 1, Ravenna 1) 2
Anthemius (Rome 341, Milan 4) 345
Euphemia (Rome 10) 10
397
SAN LAZZARO (Italy, suburb of Parma), ca. 404. A hoard of six solidi (1 oz.) discovered ca.
1889 during work on the foundations of a private house on the via Emilia between Idice and
San Lazzaro (Brizio 1890). The coins were all of the Emperor-spurning-captive type, 3 of Ar-
cadius of Milan (as 265-7, but one with a pellet after COMOB) and 3 of Honorius, 2 of Milan
(as 712-14) and 1 of Ravenna (as 735-6). The Ravenna coin dates the hoard after 402, the
preponderance of Milan soon after this.
290 APPENDIX 3
SIDI-BOU-SAID (Libya, near Barke El-Marj, 20 km from the coast), 388. A mixed hoard of late
Roman jewelry and solidi found when digging a well and eventually dispersed, most of it coming
on the market at intervals during the 1970s. Early partial accounts by P. J. Casey and others were
superseded by Diirr and Bastien (1984), whose account leaves the jewelry (including four
mounted Constantinian medallions) on one side but gives a detailed coverage of the 390 solidi
which they had succeeded in tracing and believed to come from the hoard. The bulk of the
contents, 350 out of these 390 solidi, belonged to the two decades 378—88 and included 67 early
coins of Arcadius important for classifying the solidi of these years.
SOUTH ITALY, 476/80. A hoard of 255 solidi, found in 1886 at some undisclosed locality in
the former kingdom of Naples, which was acquired by the Paris dealer H. Hoffmann and sum-
marily described by Barthélemy (1886). Since mints are not noted and it is not important for
classification, there is no need here to do more than reproduce Barthélemy’s list of its contents,
with Sabatier and Cohen identifications and the number of specimens of each type in parenthe-
ses. The coins of Eastern emperors were as follows: Arcadius, unpublished (1); Theodosius II,
S 2 (6), 3 (1), 6 (3), 8 (4), 10 (2), 13 (6), 14 (10); Marcian, S 4 (16), 6 (2); Leo I, S 4 (31), 6 (6);
Leo II and Zeno, S | (1); Basiliscus, S 1 (1); Zeno, S 1 (1). Those of Western emperors were:
Honorius, C 8 (1), 21 (19); John, C 2 (1); Galla Placidia, C 10 (2); Valentinian III, C 4 (1), 5 (1),
11 (98), 23 (1); Licinia Eudoxia, C 1 (1); Petronius Maximus, C 1 (1); Avitus, C 1 (2); Majorian,
C 1 (8); Severus III, C 6 (9); Anthemius, C 5 (10), 7 (3), 9 (1); Julius Nepos, C 2 (1); Romulus
Augustulus, C | (1).
SZIKANCS (Hungary), ca. 450 (Table 48). This enormous hoard of 1,439 solidi, originally one
assumes 1,440 solidi = 20 Roman lbs., was found in 1963 at Szikancs in southern Hungary, just
north of the confluence of the H6rés and Tisza rivers. It was acquired intact by the National
Museum of Hungary, and the detailed description by Katalin Biré Sey (1975-6) includes the
weights of all the coins and a detailed breakdown into mints and officinae, with useful notes on
die-relationships but understandably no full die analysis. The coins are of only three emperors,
Honorius (2), Valentinian III (32), and Theodosius II (1405), and the hoard was presumably
made up from a mixture of plunder and tribute, much of it evidently coming from a single
payment of Theodosius to Attila in the early 430s with a substantial addition from a further
payment of the 440s. It is of particular importance for the dating of Theodosius’ VIRT EXER-
CIT ROM coinage, for this was absent from the otherwise very similar Bina hoard, and the
Szikancs hoard shows it must belong to the late 440s. The hoard includes one unique coin, a
consular solidus of Theodosius II of the 430s, of which Biré Sey published an enlargement
elsewhere (Bird Sey and Gedai 1973, figs. 29-30). The hoard is summarily analyzed in Table 48.
TOURNAI (Belgium, prov. Hainaut), 481. The tomb of Childeric, the father of Clovis, who
died in 481, was discovered in 1653 and included among other grave furniture about 100 solidi
in a purse and over 200 denarii (Chiflet 1655, 43, 46, 250-65, 270-1; Lallemand 1965c, 115-
17; Dumas 1975, 26-9). The denarii, 42 of which were seen by Chiflet, were mainly of the
second century A.D. and must represent a hoard that had been found and come into royal
possession; Dumas cites another very similar one that was found in 1967 at Laatzen in Lower
Saxony. Four of them, illustrated by Chiflet, had been pierced for suspension as part of a neck-
lace. The solidi, in contrast to the long-obsolete denarii, were coins that would have been in
GOLD COIN HOARDS 291
TABLE 48
The Szikancs 1963 Hoard, ca. 450
Honorius
Val. III
VOT XX Victory and cross
Theod. and Val. (seated)
Emp. and serpent (RV/COMOB)
VOT XXX Cpolis seated
Consular VOT X (RM/COMOB)
Consular VOT X (RV/COMOB)
IMP XXXXII Cpolis seated
CONCORDIA AVCC Cpolis seated
VOT XX Cross and Victory (no star)
GLOR ORVIS TERRAR Emp.
standing
Theod. and Val. (Val. standing)
Theod. and Val. (Val. seated)
VOT XXX Cpolis seated
VOT XXX Cpolis seated (TESOB)
Consular, SECVRITAS
REIPVBLICAE
IMP XXXXII Cpolis seated
VIRT EXERC ROM Emp. and
captive
non _} — — — DO DO OT DO
C 68; as 789
C 9; as 836-8
C 19; as 841-3
C 42; as 860-1
C 41; as 856
C 41
C 4; as 862
T 1-9; as 313-18
T 47; as 350-3
T 10-15; as 359-60
T 33-6; as 370-3
T 25-32; as 374-6
T 49-58; as 379-87
T—; as 390
Ps
T 18-24; as 410-27
T 37-9; as 430-2
circulation at the time of burial. Most of them were acquired for the French royal collection, and
since they were merged into this, only a few can now be identified; some indeed, like so much
of the jewelry, were lost in the great Paris theft of 1831 and either melted down or thrown into
the Seine and never recovered. Chiflet saw and described 89 of the coins, illustrating 12 of them,
and Lallemand worked out the numbers of each from his somewhat confused presentation.
They were as follows:
Theodosius II. Constantinople. VOT XXX type, as 379-87 (1).
Theodosius II. Constantinople. IMP XX XXII type, as 410-27 (1).
Valentinian III. Ravenna. VOT X consular type, as 856 but Ravenna (1).
Valentinian III. Constantinople. VICTORIA AVCCC type, as 863—4 (1).
Marcian. Constantinople. Usual type, as 476—84 (8).
Leo I. Constantinople. Usual type, as 516-29 (57).
Leo I. Thessalonica. Consular type, two stars in field, as 559 (1).
Basiliscus. Constantinople. Usual type, as 607-12 (1).
Basiliscus and Marcus. Constantinople. Usual type, as 622—4 (2).
Zeno and the Caesar Leo. Constantinople. Cross-and-Victory type, as T 5 (1).
Zeno. Constantinople. Usual type, as 629-43 (15).
Julius Nepos. Ravenna. Usual type, as 939 (1).
At least 20 of the coins must have been struck during the decade before they were buried,
and the fact that several were Italian, and that they include ones of the usurper Basiliscus, shows
that they can scarcely have been a gift from the Eastern emperor, as has been suggested (Werner
1971). On the other hand, the hoard included no coins of Leo’s Western contemporaries Major-
292 APPENDIX 3
ian, Severus III, or Anthemius. The consular coin of Valentinian III, struck half a century
earlier as a ceremonial issue that probably went to only a few high officials, is noteworthy.
TRABKI MAEE (Poland), ca. 435. A “first” hoard of 97 solidi was found in 1822 on a low hill
at Trabki Mate, formerly Klein-Tromp near Braunsberg (now Braniewo) in East Prussia (Voigt
1824; Kunisz 1973, 115-16, no. 162), and 79 of them were acquired for the royal collection. Its
contents are generally cited from a footnote in Mommsen (1860, 818; III.129 note 2 of the
French trans.), but the original description by the local historian and antiquary Johannes Voigt
is much more revealing. The situation is complicated, however, by the existence of a second
hoard from the same place—this was appropriately styled “Goldberg” by the villagers—that
came to light in 1837/8 (Kunisz 1973, 116-17, no. 163). It apparently consisted initially of 18
coins, with further ones, up to a total of 43, found by searching in the vicinity. These included
one coin of Anastasius separated by a long time gap from the others and evidently forming no
part of the main deposit, which like the first hoard ended early in Valentinian III’s reign. It
seems most likely that there was a single deposit in two containers, a not infrequent occurrence
with hoards, and that one was found in 1822 and the other, broken and with the contents scat-
tered, in 1837.
The value of the hoard to the modern scholar lies in its first section, of which we have Voigt’s
detailed description, and not in its second, of which no more seems to be known than the num-
ber of coins of each emperor: Valentinian I (1), Theodosius I (1, “SM”), Honorius (16), Theo-
dosius II (18), Placidia (1), Valentinian III (1), Anastasius (1), and 4 unspecified. Voigt’s attribu-
tions require a few corrections, and there are some errors or ambiguities that cannot be resolved,
for when the same type was struck at several mints, he gives the totals without saying how many
coins belonged to each. The contents seem to have been as follows:
Gordian III. Rome. PM TR P II COS PP Libertas standing (1).
Valentinian I. Mint not stated. RESTITVTOR REIPVBLICAE Emp. standing (1).
Valens. As last (1).
Theodosius I. Constantinople. CONCORDIA AVCCC® Cpolis seated w. globe, CONOB. RIC
1X.223/45c or d? (Voigt gives the final letter as O, perhaps a printing error for
0, though elsewhere this is given correctly) (1).
Constantinople. VICTORIA AVGGG Emp. spurning captive, SM/CONOB. RIC IX.160/
12a (1 +, but fewer than 6).
Arcadius. Constantinople. CONCORDIA AVCCCS Cpolis seated holding shield with VOT/
V/MVL/X. RIC IX.225/47c or d; as 76 (1).
Same mint. VICTORIA AVGGA Emperor spurning captive, SM/CONOB. RIC IX.161/
ech);
Same mint. CONCORDIA AVCCB (or 9). Cpolis seated w. globe and Victory. As RIC
1X.223/45c (3; this does not occur with CC, only with CCC or CCCC).
Milan, Ravenna. Emperor spurning captive, MD or RV/COMOB. as 265-7 or 272 (3).
Eudoxia. Constantinople. SALVS REIPVBLICAE Victory inscribing Christogram on shield,
CONOB. As 273 (1).
Honorius. Ravenna. VICTORIA AVGGG Emperor spurning captive, RV'COMOB. As 735—
6 (19).
Ravenna. VICTORIA AVGGG Emperor w. foot on lion, RV/COB. As 742 (1).
Constantinople. CONCORDIA AVGGS (or I or 9). Cpolis seated holding globe w. Vic-
tory, CONOB, star in field. As 776-80 (3).
GOLD COIN HOARDS 293
Thessalonica. As last, no off. numeral, TESOB. As 786 (1).
Theodosius II. Constantinople. CONCORDIA AVGGA (or B, H). Cpolis seated holding
globe w. Victory, one w. star in field. As 313-18 (8).
Constantinople. VOT XX MVLT XXX A (or €) Cross and Victory, no star in field,
CONOB. As 350-3 (2).
Constantinople or Thessalonica. GLOR ORVIS TERRAR Emp. standing, CONOB or TE-
SOB. As 359-60 and 364-9 (5).
Ravenna. VICTORIA AVGGG Emp. spurning captive, RV'COMOB. As 349 (1+, fewer
than 6).
Constantinople. SALVS REIPVBLICAE Theod. seated and Val. standing, CONOB. As
370-3 (2).
Constantinople. Similar, but both figures seated. As 374-6 (6).
Constantinople. VOT XXX MVLT XXXXA (or B, E, or 9). Cpolis seated. As 379-
87 (10).
Pulcheria. Constantinople. SALVS REIPVBLICAE. Victory inscribing Chi-Rho on shield,
CONOB. As 436 (1).
Constantius III. Ravenna. VICTORIA AVGGG Emp. spurning captive, RV/COMOB. As
815 (1).
John. Ravenna. Same reverse. As 819 (2).
Galla Placidia. Aquileia, Rome, Ravenna. VOT XX MVLT XXX Cross and Victory, star in
field, AQ or RM or RV, COMOB. As 825-8 (5).
Honoria. Ravenna BONO REIPVBLICAE Cross and Victory, star in field, RV'COMOB. As
866 (2).
Valentinian III. Ravenna. VICTORIA AVGGG Emp. and Serpent, RV/COMOB. As 841-
3 (9).
The aureus of Gordian III was probably acquired by its owner within Germany, since such
coins had long ceased to form part of the currency of the Empire. The others, with their re-
markable concentration of solidi of the 420s, may well have left imperial soil as a single group
between 430, the latest datable element in the hoard being the ten VOT XXX coins of Theo-
dosius II, and the start of Theodosius II’s huge IMP XXXXII issue in 442/3. The contents
confirm the evidence of the Comiso hoard for dating Honoria’s coinage, and thus her accession,
to the 420s, and in placing the GLOR ORVIS TERRAR solidi of Theodosius II in the same
decade. Also noteworthy is the presence of a specimen of the Ravenna solidus of Honorius
showing the emperor with a lion at his feet (742).
TUNISIA, ca. 460. A hoard of several hundred solidi of which Adrien Blanchet apparently saw
66 in the hands of a Paris dealer, but his list of its contents (in RN* 16 [1912], 559) is too brief
and lacking in detail to be of much value. The coins he saw were:
Arcadius 3 (Constantinople, Milan)
Honorius 6 (Constantinople, Milan, Rome, Ravenna)
Theodosius II 27 (Constantinople, Thessalonica, Ravenna)
Pulcheria 2
Eudocia 2 (one with VOT XXX MVLT XX)
Valentinian III 7 (Constantinople, Ravenna, Rome)
Petronius Maximus |
Marcian 6
Leo 19
294 APPENDIX 3
Verina |
The absence of coins of Western emperors later than Petronius Maximus points to a deposit
date early in the reign of Leo I, and the hoard is of value in showing that Verina’s coins were
then in circulation.
VEDRIN (Belgium), ca. 495 (Table 49). A pot hoard found ca. 1920 at Vedrin, just outside
Namur, consisting of 69 solidi and a second-century denarius of Antoninus Pius divus. The
hoard, which perhaps originally represented a pound of gold, is essentially Western, with only
18 solidi from Constantinople, and is more likely to have been formed in Italy than in northern
Gaul. It must have been buried soon after the accession of Anastasius in 491 and is remarkable
for its good representation of Italian issues of the 470s, so that the detailed description by Lal-
lemand (1965c) is expanded with valuable excursuses, notably on the solidi of Glycerius and
Zeno’s coinage of Milan. The contents are set out in Table 49, without a breakdown into issues
since the details are not helpful for dating. The coins were included in a Sotheby-Michel (Ge-
neva) sale of 17.xi.1989, many of them being bought by the Cabinet des Médailles at Brussels.
TABLE 49
The Vedrin ca. 1920 Hoard, ca. 495: Rulers and Mints
For a further breakdown into issues and types, important mainly for emperors ruling in the
470s, see Lallemand (1965c). Figures under Valentinian III preceded by a plus sign are (?Ger-
manic) imitations (2 RM with Z, 1 RV with crown; see above, p. 236). One coin of Zeno attributed
to Rome may be of Ravenna.
Mints
l
Magnus Maximus |
Honorius 2 l 3
Constantine III l 2
Theodosius II ] ]
Valentinian III 4+2 8+ 1 15
Marcian l 3
Petronius Maximus ] l
Leo I 4
Majorian 2 ] 3
Severus III 5 5
Anthemius 3 2 5
Glycerius ] ]
Julius Nepos 3 2 5
Basiliscus 9
Basiliscus and Marcus
Zeno | ] 5 2 ] 17
Anastasius ] l
Ce fs a fers Pan fe
VELP (Netherlands, prov. Gelderland), 425+. A hoard of gold coins and jewelry (mounted
solidi and medallions) that was found in 1715 when leveling a terp in a field at Velp, near
GOLD COIN HOARDS 295
Arnhem. Its contents are mainly known from an account by a contemporary antiquary, Gisbert
Cuyper, and by what can be reconstructed of the subsequent very complicated history of the
medallions, now in the Dutch, French, and British national collections (Chabouillet 1883; Kerk-
wijk 1910, well documented but confusedly presented; Zadoks-Josephus Jitta 1950). The coins,
whose number is unrecorded, seem to have been mainly ones of the second half of the fourth
century (Valentinian I, Valens, Gratian), but went back to Constantine’s sons and ended with
John. The centerpiece of the hoard was a gold necklet to which were attached five mounted
medallions, three of Honorius and two of Galla Placidia (above, pp. 202, 230), with elaborate
mounts. Since the mounts are Roman, not Germanic, the original owner was presumably a high
Roman official, but the date of burial is uncertain since some of the coins, of which no detailed
descriptions survive, could have been of Valentinian III, not Valentinian I.
WURSELEN (Germany, outskirts of Aachen), ca. 395. This hoard of 32 solidi was found in 1900
during work on the foundations of a house and acquired for the Museum of Aachen. The
careful description by Stedtfeld (1901) does not include weights. The coins are of Valentinian I
(7), Valens (3), Gratian (11), Valentinian III (3), Theodosius I (1), Arcadius (2), and Honorius
(5). The coin of Theodosius is of Trier (two emperors seated: RIC IX.30/90b), but for those of
Arcadius and Honorius, all of Milan, the descriptions must be at fault, for the combination GG
and COMOB does not occur on solidi of either emperor and GG with COM does not occur for
Honorius. Presumably it should be GGG, and the coins are as 265-7 (Arcadius) and 712-14
(Honorius), in both cases struck from 394 onward.
XANTEN (Germany, Nord-Westfalen, Kr. Moers), 425/30? A hoard of well over 400 solidi from
Valentinian I to Valentinian III and Theodosius II found in 1764 in the foundations of the
abbey of Hagenbusch. The accounts by W. Hagen (in Bonner Jahrbiicher 151 [1951], 250-1) and
by Kaiser-Raiss and Kliissendorf (1984, 25-9) are superseded by Iluk’s analysis of the 210 solidi
(plus 8 AR and 13 AE) bought from it at the time by the Berlin cabinet (Iluk 1987). The listing
of the purchase, preserved in the Hauptstaatsarchiv Disseldorf, is detailed enough to permit
the identification of virtually all the gold coins this contained, but we do not know how repre-
sentative these were of the total contents.
ZECCONE (Italy, 10 km north of Pavia), 480/90. A pot hoard of 42 + 7 solidi (perhaps more)
and a little jewelry found in 1869 and carefully described and partly illustrated by Brambilla
(1870; see also Peroni 1967, 103—6 for the jewelry and illus. of the lead container and 8 coins).
The coins, though not always identifiable, are for the most part in the museum at Pavia. Those
of Eastern emperors are as follows: Marcian (2), Leo I (15; 7 normal type of CP, 1 with standing
figure [as 532], 2 of Rome, 5 of Milan), Leo II and Zeno (2, as 600-3), Basiliscus (1 CP, 1
Ravenna), Zeno (1 CP, 3 Milan). Those of Western emperors are: Galla Placidia (1, of Ravenna,
as 827-8), Anthemius (15; 6 Rome, 9 Milan), Julius Nepos (6; 5 Milan, 1 Ravenna), Romulus
Augustulus (1 Ravenna). The preponderance of coins of Milan is a natural consequence of the
place of finding. Brambilla suggested that the hoard was hidden in 488 or shortly afterward,
during the Ostrogothic invasion, but earlier in the decade seems more likely.
APPENDIX 4
Forgeries
Counterfeiting for collectors has taken place in all coin series from the Renaissance onward,
and the century covered by this volume has been one of the worst sufferers. As a historical
period it is reasonably well documented and of great interest, and while coins of some emperors
are common, those of others, and in particular those of the many local and short-lived usurpers,
are either unknown or very rare. There are thus many real or apparent gaps in the numismatic
record which forgers have been tempted to try and fill, either by recutting the legends or mod-
ifying the types of genuine coins or by starting from scratch with specially cut dies. In the sev-
enteenth and eighteenth centuries the tooling of coins to improve their appearance was an
accepted practice, and the transition from work intended to clarify legends and bring out the
details of types to that of creating new coinages by altering mint-marks or substituting the name
of one emperor for that of another was easily effected. Most forgeries have probably always been
made for financial gain, but “genuineness” is a fairly recent concept, and in former times some
collectors might value a reproduction agreeable to the eye above a worn or damaged original.
Sestini, in exposing Becker's forgeries, wrote that “if Becker had been asked what was his motive
in making so many dies of rather rare or extremely rare coins, he would have replied that he
did so for the sake of those who wanted to have series of these rare pieces, it being difficult to
acquire genuine examples.” Sestini did not in fact believe that Becker’s motives were so disinter-
ested, but the idea of performing a service to collectors, wrong-headed as it seems to us, is not
to be discounted. In Becker's case one has also to allow for his genuine pride in his own artistic
skills and probably a certain malicious satisfaction in deceiving reputed connoisseurs.
The most famous early forgeries, the “Paduan” sestertii of Giovanni da Cavino of Padua
(1500-70) and others, do not include fifth-century coins, but these do begin to appear in collec-
tions formed in the seventeenth century. Usually they were genuine coins retooled, and it is
indeed probably true to say that most pre-nineteenth-century forgeries of later imperial coins,
apart from crude casts, were made in this way. Such tooled coins could sometimes result in
impossibilities. The artist responsible for a “sestertius” of Galla Placidia in the Dutch national
collection having on the obverse a profile bust with the legend D N GALLA PLACIDIA P F
AVG and on the reverse a Pudicitia type was probably unaware that in Galla Placidia’s time the
denomination had been extinct for nearly two centuries and that the type was never used in the
Christian period; the coin is a recut one of the third-century empress Otacilia, wife of Philip
the Arabian. Others are more credible. Tolstoi published as authentic a large AE in the Hermi-
tage of Zeno and the Caesar Leo (T 65) with the obverse legend D N ZENO ET LEO NOV
CAES which goes back to at least the late eighteenth century, having been published by Tanini
in 1791. The coin would be of great interest numismatically and historically if it were authentic,
but it seems in every other respect to be a normal large AE of Zeno (as 689), and Kent is surely
correct in assuming the legend to be recut from the normal IMP ZENO FELICISSIMO SEN
AVG of these coins (Kent 1959a, 97-8). Another coin in the Hermitage, a siliqua of Julius Nepos
296
FORGERIES 297
having as reverse type VOTIS/V/MVLTIS/X in a wreath, which was published as authentic as
late as 1930, is almost certainly a siliqua of the late fourth century with a recut obverse legend
(above, p. 268). One coin in this collection with a pedigree going back two centuries, a half siliqua
of Constantius III (816) with an inappropriate reverse type and an impossible mint-mark
(SMN), is certainly a forgery, and the authenticity of several other small AR of the fifth century
(e.g., 672) is not above suspicion.
The most accomplished forger of the early nineteenth century, Carl Wilhelm Becker (1772-
1830), had fortunately little interest in the late Roman series, his contributions to it consisting
of no more than a few solidi and tremisses that were poor in style and far below the level of his
Greek counterfeits. The first edition of BMC RE IV (1940) included a denarius of Commodus
(no. 175) which was in fact a forgery of Becker and is dropped in the second edition of 1968.
Becker's surviving notebooks and dies form the basis of a monograph of Hill (1922) in which all
his counterfeits are reproduced, so that his work replaces an earlier listing by Pinder (1843).
Most of the coins were known in the past century to be false, and are sometimes so noted by
Cohen, but they still occasionally deceive collectors. He took pains to give his products an ap-
pearance of age and wear by shaking them in a box of iron filings attached to his carriage axle—
“sodann kutschirte ich meine Miinzen” is a common entry in his diary; they thus differ from the
neat impression one gets from Hill's illustrations, which were made directly from casts produced
from the dies themselves. Hill lists (11.21, nos. 267—74) only eight coins of the period covered by
this volume. They are Ravennate solidi of Arcadius (as 272), Honorius (as 735—6), Constantius
III (as 815), and John (as 819), all sharing a single reverse die; a Ravenna solidus of Honoria (as
866), with a Cross-and-Victory reverse die which Becker also used incongruously for a solidus
of Vetranio; a solidus of Euphemia (as 933); and tremisses of Olybrius (C 5) and Glycerius (as
937, but different wreath).
Becker’s contributions to the late Roman series were eclipsed in the second half of the nine-
teenth century by those of Luigi Cigoi of Udine (1811-75). The two differed as much in their
mode of work as in their interests. Becker was an accomplished artist; he cut his own dies, had
high artistic standards, and worked almost exclusively in gold and silver. Cigoi was a collector
and a well-informed numismatist, and capable of re-engraving ancient coins, but he employed
others to cut his dies and he concentrated his attention on small denominations of silver and
bronze, especially in the late Roman and medieval Italian series. He was by profession a tanner,
with substantial interests over much of north Italy which involved him in constant travel. He
had many friends in the collecting world, and he seems early to have discovered that the pro-
cesses of treating and dyeing leather and skins could be adapted for the purposes of aging and
patinating coins. He was active between the 1840s and the 1860s, and since Lombardy was part
of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to 1860 and Venetia (including Udine) to 1866, he had as
ready access to collectors in Graz and Vienna as he had to those of Venice and Milan. It may
indeed have been the collecting interests of Carl and Franz Trau in Vienna, and the policy of
the Imperial cabinet of building up its holdings of late Roman coins, that led him to produce so
much in the late Roman field.
As long as Cigoi sold his coins in twos and threes their authenticity seems to have gone
unchallenged, though Carlo Kunz, an excellent numismatist who had settled at Venice as a coin
dealer, drew up in the 1870s a long list of collections in north Italy in which they were to be
found. But in 1869 Cigoi made the mistake of selling an entire collection to the dealer Adolph
Hess, and as soon as this was seen by competent scholars the recent origin of many of its contents
was at once recognized. The young Franz Trau published (Trau 1871) a summary list of 40
298 APPENDIX 4
forgeries in it from the Republican to the Ostrogothic period, describing them “in ihrer Ge-
sammtheit als gefahrlich und im Einzelen als sehr gefahrlich” and illustrating 34 of them. In
each case he states his grounds for suspicion and describes the nature of the forgery: whether
it is struck, cast, or tooled, whether it is a forgery of a known coin or a pure invention. A further
list of Cigoiana, over twice as long as Trau’s, was published twenty-five years later by Willner
(1895), the additions being almost exclusively further AR and AE of fifth-century emperors and
empresses, but the absence of illustrations makes it less useful than it might have been. Finally,
Lodovico Brunetti published in 1966 what is probably the definitive study of the subject (Bru-
netti 1966). It is much more generously illustrated than either of its two predecessors and has
made extensive use of the unpublished notes of Kunz and others, but it has been extended in a
rather disorganized fashion to include related forgeries not by Cigoi at all, though in some cases
known to have formed part of his collection. The total of over a hundred forgeries listed for the
fifth century alone goes far to explain the uncertainty that sometimes exists over the authenticity
of individual specimens even in major collections.
Cigoi’s products dominate the middle decades of the nineteenth century. The most accom-
plished of his successors was a certain Tardani, who worked in Rome at the end of the century
and during the first two decades of the next, but his huge output was virtually limited to medie-
val and early modern Italian coins. An equally talented artist, fortunately more limited in his
output and interests, was the author of the so-called “Geneva forgeries” which were first iden-
tified by Laffranchi and on which there exists a comprehensive study by Carson (1958). Al-
though limited to base antoniniani and related coins of five minor rulers of the Diocletianic and
Tetrarchic periods, and so not of immediate relevance to the fifth century, they are important
in showing how much skill and numismatic acumen can be expended on coins of no intrinsic
value or aesthetic appeal if their rarity and market price justify the effort. They also testify to
the modern interest in die study, for while Becker and Cigoi could link the same reverse die
with obverses of half a dozen emperors in full assurance that this would not be noticed, each
“Geneva” reverse is linked to only a single obverse. They were apparently produced at Geneva
by an antique dealer with a high reputation in the cleaning and restoration of bronzes, but while
his skill in die-cutting and his knowledge of how to age and patinate his products were funda-
mental to the operation, the sophistication and judgment displayed in the choice of the best
coins to imitate strongly suggest that he was receiving technical advice from some well-informed.
but specialized collector whose identity remains unknown. It is perhaps this that explains his
limitation to Tetrarchic bronzes, if indeed limitation there was, for it is otherwise hard to explain
why a forger of such consummate talent failed to exploit the rich possibilities open in the later
Roman Imperial field.
Forgery is in any coin series a major source of vexation. Quite apart from cheating collec-
tors, it confuses the record and makes it difficult to establish stylistic criteria for determining
authenticity and isolating the features of style and workmanship peculiar to particular mints. In
the late Imperial series, forgeries are especially pernicious for metrological reasons. Early
nineteenth-century forgers did not realize that the weights of many coins were determined quite
closely, and Becker’s solidi sometimes exceed 5 g in weight or fall below 4 g. Later forgers were
better informed, but since the theoretical weights of silver and bronze coins were—and are—
often unknown, they could make their coins virtually what weight they liked. The resulting
figures can easily gain entry to the tables drawn up by metrologically minded numismatists and
confuse their calculations completely. They can even affect the gold, as they apparently have in
Brunetti’s attempt to demonstrate the existence of a wide variety of solidus fractions in the later
Empire (Brunetti 1973).
ALIN
ASFN
BAR
BCEN
BdN
BM
BSFN
BZ
CARB
DOP
FMRD
GN
[APN
JMP
JNG
JRS
MA
MN
MONG
NC
NCirc
NK
NNA
NNM
NZ
QT
RBN
REB
RIN
RN
RNS
RSN
SAN
SM
WN
Z{N
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbreviations of Periodicals and Series
Annali del Istituto italiano di numismatica
Annuaire de la Société francaise de numismatique
British Archaeological Reports
Bulletin du Cercle d’Etudes numismatiques (Brussels)
Bollettino di numismatica
Blatter fiir Miinzfreunde
Bulletin de la Société francaise de numismatique
Byzantinische Zeitschrift
Corsi di cultura sull’arte ravennate e bizantina (Istituto di Antichita Ravennate e Bizan-
tini, Ravenna)
Dumbarton Oaks Papers
Die Fundmiinzen der rémischen Zeit in Deutschland, I— (Berlin, 1960-)
Gaceta numismatica
International Association of Professional Numismatists
Jaarboek voor Munt- en Penningkunde
Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik und Geldgeschichte
Journal of Roman Studies
Le Moyen Age
Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society)
Mitteilungen der Osterreichischen Numismatischen Gesellschaft
Numismatic Chronicle
(Spink’s) Numismatic Circular
Numizmatikai Kézlény
Nordisk Numismatisk Arsskrift
Numismatic Notes and Monographs (American Numismatic Society)
Numismatische Zeitschrift
Quaderni ticinesi: Numismatica e Antichita classiche
Revue belge de numismatique
Revue d'études byzantines
Rivista italiana di numismatica
Revue numismatique
Royal Numismatic Society
Revue suisse de numismatique
Society for Ancient Numismatics (California)
Schweizer Miinzblatter
Wiadomosci Numizmaticzne
Zeitschrift fiir Numismatik
299
300
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABRAMISHVILI, IT. YA.
1965
Vizantiiskie moneti gosudarstvennogo muzea Gruzii. Tbilisi.
ADELSON, H. L.
1954
1957
1958
The Bronze Alloys of the Coinage of the Later Roman Empire. MN 6: 111-29.
A Note on the Miliarense from Constantine to Heraclius. MN 7: 125-35.
Silver Currency and Values in the Early Byzantine Empire. Centennial Publication of the Ameri-
can Numismatic Society, ed. H. Ingholt: 1-26. New York.
AbELSON, H. L., anp G. L. KusTas
1960
A Bronze Hoard of the Period of Leo I. MN 9: 139-88.
1962 A Bronze Hoard of the Period of Zeno I, NNM 148. New York.
1964
ADHEMAR, J.
1934
A Sixth Century Hoard of Minimi from the Western Peloponnese. MN 11: 159~—205.
Le trésor d’argenterie donné par saint Didier aux églises d’Auxerre (VIle siécle). Revue
archéologique® 4: 44—54.
ALBIZZATI, C.
1922
Lultima toga. RIN 35: 69-92.
ALBRECHT, C.
1957
ALFOLDI, A.
1922
1923a
1923b
1924-6
1935
1943
Dortmunder Schatzfund rémischer Goldmiinzen. Dortmund.
Das Ende der Miinzpragung in Pannonien. Mitteilungen der numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien
15 (1919-26): 172-3.
Siscia. BM 58: 9-11, 314-17.
Zur Miinzkunde der spateren rémischen Kaiserzeit: 6. Barbarische Nachahmungen rém-
ischer Siliquae aus dem 4. Jahr. n. Chr. BM 58: 394-6.
Der Untergang der Rémerherrschaft in Pannonien, 1, Ungarische Bibliothek 10 (1924). Berlin-
Leipzig. (Vol. 2 [1926] is not concerned with the coins.)
Insignien und Tracht der rémischen Kaiser. Mitteilungen des deutschen Archdologischen Instituts,
Rémische Abteilungen 50: 1-171. (Repr. in his Die monarchische Reprasentation im rémischen Kais-
erreiche, Darmstadt, 1970: 119-276.)
Die Kontorniaten: Ein verkanntes Propagandamittel der stadrémischen heidnischen Aristokratie in threm
Kampfe gegen das christliche Kaisertum. Budapest-Leipzig. See also A. Alf6ldi et al. 1976.
ALFOLDI, A., E. ALFOLDI, AND C. L. Clay
1976 Die Kontorniat-Medaillons, Teil 1, Katalog. Berlin. (Revised edn. of the catalogue section of A.
Alféldi 1943.)
ALFOLDI, M. R.
1959 Epigraphische Beitrage zur r6mischen Miinztechnik bis auf Konstantin den Grossen. RSN 39
(1958-9): 35-48.
1961 Signum Deae: Die kaiserzeitlichen Vorganger des Reichapfels. JNG 11: 19-32.
1962 Die Miinzanhanger aus dem Frauengrab Heilbronn-Béckingen. Fundberichte aus Schwaben,
N.F. 16: 134—46. Stuttgart.
1963a Die Constantinische Goldprégung. Mainz.
1963b Exkurse zu den Kaiserinsignien. In her Die Constantinische Goldpragung: 146-53. Mainz.
1963c Fragen des Miinzumlaufes im 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr. JNG 13: 75-104.
1968 Le trésor de Wiesbaden-Kastel (Is—V* siécles). BCEN 5: 95-102.
1970 Zum Datum der Aufgabe der Residenz Trier unter Stilicho. JNG 20: 241-9.
1980
1987
1988
ALLARD, P.
1907
Antike Goldmiinzen in der Miinzensammlung der Deutschen Bundesbank. Munich.
Schildbilder der rémischen Kaiser auf Miinzen und Multipla. In Studi per Laura Breglia (=
BdN, Suppl. al no. 4), Il: 133-45. Rome.
Das Goldmultiplum Theoderichs des Grossen: Neue Uberlegungen. RIN 90: 367-72.
Une grande fortune romaine au cinquiéme siécle. Revue des questions historiques 81: 3-30.
ALLASON-JONES, L., AND B. McKay
1985
Coventina’s Well: A Shrine on Hadrian’s Wall. Hexham.
AMANDRY, M.
1981
Solidus de Constantin III au British Museum. BSFN 36: 121-2.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 301
AMANDRY, M., J. N. BARRANDON, C. BRENOT, J. P. CALLU, AND J. POIRIER
1982 Laffinage des métaux monnayés au Bas-Empire: Les réformes valentiniennes de 364-368.
QT 11: 279-95.
AMBROSOLI, S.
1902 Un solido d’oro inedito di Licinia Eudoxia. Rassegna d’arte 2: 42-3.
ANNIBALDI, G.
1959 Ripostiglio di Fano. AIJN 5—6 (1958-9): 269-70.
ANOKHIN, V. A.
1977 Monetnoe delo Khersonesa (IV v. do n.e.—XII v. n. e.). Kiev.
ARCE, J.
1987 A Solidus Hoard from the Vicinity of Karanis. RSN 66: 181-7.
ARCHER, S.
1979 Late Roman Gold and Silver Coin Hoards in Britain: A Gazetteer. In Casey 1979: 29-65.
Arne, T. J. :
1919 Solidusfynden pa Oland och Gotland. Fornvénnen 14: 107-11.
1931 Deux nouvelles découvertes de solidi en Gotland. Acta archaeologica 2: 1-28.
ARNETH, J.
1842 Synopsis numorum antiquorum qui in Museo Caesareo Vindobonensi adservantur, 11. Numi romani.
Vienna.
ARSLAN, E. A.
1986 II ripostiglio di minimi bizantini, goti e vandali da Fontana Liri (Frosinone). In Studi e notizie,
Civici Musei d’Arte e di Storia di Brescia, 2: 77—86. Brescia.
Avi1-YONAH, M.
1958 The Economics of Byzantine Palestine. Israel Exploration Journal 8: 39-51.
BABELON, E.
1901 La silique romaine, le sou, et le denier de la loi des Francs saliens. RN* 5: 325-47.
1906 La trouvaille de Helleville (Manche) en 1780. RN* 10: 160—89, 490-2.
1914 Attila dans la numismatique. RN* 18: 297-328.
BaABELON, E., AND J. A. BLANCHET
1895 Catalogue des bronzes antiques de la Bibliothéque Nationale. Paris.
BABELON, J.
1953 Le théme iconographique de la violence. In Studies Presented to David Moore Robinson, ed. G. E.
Mylonas, II: 278-88. St. Louis.
1963 El cristianisme en la moneda del Bajo Imperio. Numisma 65: 17-33.
BAGNALL, R. S.
1985 Currency and Inflation in Fourth-Century Egypt, Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrolo-
gists, Suppl. no. 5. New York.
BAGNALL, R. S., A. CAMERON, S. R. SCHWARTZ, AND K. A. WorP
1987 Consuls of the Later Roman Empire, Philological Monographs of the American Philological As-
sociation 36. Atlanta.
BALAGUER, A. M.
1980 Descoberta d’un nou exemplar de les rares siliqiies de Maxim Tira, atribuides a la seca de
Barcelona: Corpus de les emissions de Maxim. Numisma 30.2: 141-54.
BALBI, S. DE CARO
1987 Roma, 1880: Monete d’oro dal Tevere. In Tevere: Archeologia e commercio, Banco di Roma,
Esposizione, 28 maggio 1987: 35-42.
BANDURI, A.
1718 Numismata Imperatorum Romanorum a Trajano Decio ad Palaeologos Augustos, 2 vols. Paris.
BARATTE, F.
1975 Les ateliers d’argenterie au Bas-Empire. Journal des Savants: 193-212.
1976 Quelques remarques a propos des lingots d’or et d’argent du Bas-Empire. In Frappes et ateliers
monétaires dans l’Antiquité et Moyen Age: 63-71. Belgrade.
302 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1978 Lingots d’or et d’argent en rapport avec l’atelier de Sirmium. Sirmium VIII: 99-109. Rome-
Belgrade.
BARNES, T. D.
1975 Patricti under Valentinian III. Phoenix 29: 155-70.
BARRANDON, J. N., J. P. CALLU, AND C. BRENOT
1977 The Analysis of Constantinian Coins (A.D. 313-40) by Non-Destructive Californium 252 Ac-
tivation Analysis. Archaeometry 19: 173-86.
BARTHELEMY, A. DE
1878 Trésor de monnaies trouvé a Arcy-Sainte-Restitue. Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires
de France: 151-6.
1886 ‘Irésor du Bas-Empire. ASFN 10: 139-40.
BASTIEN
1987 Mélanges de numismatique offerts a Pierre Bastien a l'occasion de son 75e anniversaire, ed. H. Hu-
velin, M. Christol, and G. Gautier. Wetteren.
BASTIEN, P.
1960 Folles de l’atelier de Lyon frappés avec le méme coin d’effigie. SM 10: 75-7.
1972 Les multiples d’or de l'avénement de Diocletien a la mort de Constantin: Essai de classement
métrologique. RN® 14: 49-82.
1978 A propos du taux d’argent des folles de l’atelier de Lyon de 294 a 316. BSFN 33: 428-31.
1980 Solidi de Constantin III frappés a Lyon. BSFN 35: 741-3.
1981 Trésor de “solidi” et de siliquae de la période valentinienne. RBN 127: 47—73. See also Diirr
and Bastien 1984.
1985a_ Les solidi des vota publica de Valentinien I a Théodose I. QT 14: 305-41.
1985b__La fin de I’atelier monétaire romain de Lyon. BSFN 40: 623-5.
1985c Imitations of Roman Bronze Coins A.D. 318-363. MN 30: 143-77.
1987a Le monnayage de l’atelier de Lyon du régne de Jovien a la mort de Jovin (363—413). Wetteren.
1987b Le buste a main levée dans le monnayage romain. In Studi per Laura Breglia (= BdN, Suppl.
al no. 4), II: 147—62. Rome.
1988 Monnaie et Donativa au Bas-Empire, Numismatique romaine 17. Wetteren.
BASTIEN, P., AND H. HUVELIN
1971 Orientation des axes de coins dans le monnayage impérial roman. BSFN 26: 130-5.
Baynes, N. H.
1922 A Note on Professor Bury’s “History of the Later Roman Empire.” JRS 12: 207-29.
BELFORT, A. DE
1890 Recherche de monnaies impériales romaines non décrites dans l’ouvrage de Cohen: Suite et
fin. ASFN 14: 202-20.
BELLINGER, A. R.
1930 Catalogue of the Coins Found at Corinth, 1925. New Haven.
1958 Roman and Byzantine Medallions in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection. DOP 12: 125-56.
BELLINGER, A. R., AND M. A. BERLINCOURT
1962 Victory as a Coin Type, NNM 149. New York.
BELLINGER, A. R., P. Bruun, J. P. C. Kent, AND C. H. V. SUTHERLAND
1964 Late Roman Gold and Silver Coins at Dumbarton Oaks: Diocletian to Eugenius. DOP 18:
161-236.
BeLova, L. N.
1941 Neizdannie monety Khersonesa. Sovetskaya Arkheologiya 7: 326-9.
BENDALL, S.
1978 An Issue of Copper Coins in the Names of Leo II and Zeno. BSFN 33: 388-9 (illus. on p.
380).
Berk, H. J.
1986 Roman Gold Coins of the Medieval World 383-1453 A.D. Joliet, Illinois.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 303
BERNAREGGI, E.
1969 Il medaglione d’oro di Teoderico. RIN 71: 89-106.
1984 Un miliarense inedito di Arcadio per Mediolanum. QT 13: 249-55.
BERNHART, M.
1926 Handbuch zur Miinzkunde der rémischen Kaiserzeit, 2 vols. Halle.
BERTI, F.
1976 Mosaici antichi in Italia. Regione ottava. Ravenna, I. Rome.
BIERBRAUER, V.
1975 Dve Ostgotischen Grab- und Schatzfunde in Italien, Biblioteca degli Studi Medievali 7. Spoleto.
BINGEN, J.
1948 Le trésor de monnaies no. 2 d’El Kab (Petits bronzes romains; vers 370 aprés J.-C.). Chronique
d’Egypte 23: 162-80.
Biro Sey, K.
1968 II: Theodosius solidusanak egykoru hamisitvanya (A contemporary counterfeit of a solidus.
of Theodosius II). Folia Archeologica 19: 99-102, with English summary.
1975-6 A Szikancsi V. szazadi solidus lelet (The fifth-century solidus find of Szikancs). NK 74-5: 7—
18, with English summary.
1988 Zeitgenossische Falschungen rémischer Miinzen in Pannonien. RIN 90: 330-48.
Biro Sey, K., AND I. GEDAI
1973 Coins and Medals. Budapest.
Biscuorr, B., AND W. KOEHLER
1939 Eine illustrierte Ausgabe der spatantiken Ravennater Annales. In Medieval Studies in Memory
of A. Kingsley Porter, ed. W. R. W. Koehler, I: 125-38. Cambridge, Mass.
BLACKBURN, M.
1988 Three Silver Coins in the Names of Valentinian III (425-55) and Anthemius (467-72) from
Chatham Lines, Kent. NC 148: 169-74.
BLANCARD, L.
1888 Un millarés d’Arcadius: Etude sur le millarés de Constantin 4 Heraclius. RN° 6: 417-33.
BLANCHET, A.
1900 Les trésors de monnaies romaines et les invasions germaniques en Gaule. Paris.
1908 Le monnayage de l’empire romain aprés la mort de Théodose ler. Comptes rendus de l’Académie
des Inscriptions et de Belles Lettres: 77-82.
1910 Les “sous gaulois” du Ve siécle. Le Moyen Age? 14: 45-8.
1924 Les monnaies de la guerre de Théodose II contre Attila, en 442. Revue historique du Sud-Est
européen 1: 97-102.
BLAND, R.
1984 The West Row, Freckenham, Suffolk, Treasure Trove. In Burnett 1984a: 135—44.
BLAND, R., AND A. WHITE
1984 The Osbournby, Lincs., Treasure Trove. In Burnett 1984a: 125-33.
Biocy, M.
1934 Un probléme d’évolution: Léconomie nature sous le Bas-Empire et depuis. Annales d'histoire
économique et sociale 6: 106.
BLOEMERS, J. H. F.
1970 Een laat-Romeinse muntschat uit Obbicht, Bonnefantenmuseum. Maastricht.
BO6ckH, A.
1838 Metrologische Untersuchungen tiber Gewichte, Miinzfusse und Masse des Altertums. Berlin.
BoE Es, P. C. J. A.
1951 Friesland tot de elfde eeuw. Zijn vd6r- en vroege geschiedenis, 2nd ed. The Hague.
BoersMA, J. S.
1963 De Romeinse muntvondsten in de provincie Noord-Brabant. JMP 50: 1-75.
304 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOLIN, S.
1926 Fynden af romerska mynt i det fria Germanien, 2 vols., Studia i romersk och aldre germansk
historia. Lund.
BonaFInl, G.
1959 Due reperti alto-medioevali della Valle Camonica. In Miscellanea di Studi Bresciani sull’alto me-
dioevo: 117-36. Brescia.
BonFIOLt, M.
1984 Monete “Bizantine” nelle Raccolte numismatiche del Museo Civico di Siena, Ricuperi bizantini in
Italia 2. Rome.
Bonl, G.
1899 Il tesoro della Casa delle Vestali. Notizie degli Scavi: 325-30. (Superseded by Ungaro 1985.)
Boon, G. C.
1961 The Roman Temple at Brean Down, Somerset, and the Dating of “minimissimi.” NC’ 1: 191—
yf
1974 Counterfeit Coins in Roman Britain. In Casey and Reece 1974: 95-171.
BOTTGER, B.
1975 Dominus noster Arcadius .. . : Ein Solidusfund im Kastell Jatrus. Numismatische Beitrége 1975. 1:
37-9.
Bourcey, S.
1986 Lévolution du monnayage d’or aux Ve et Vle siécles aprés J.C. In Numismatics—Witness to
History, [APN Publication 8: 65-71. Wetteren.
BouTIN, S.
1983 Collection N.K.: Monnaies des empires de Byzance. Maastricht. (The collection of Nadia Kapa-
madji.)
Boyce, A. A.
1954 Eudoxia, Eudocia, Eudoxia: Dated Solidi of the Fifth Century. MN 6: 131-42.
1957 Coins of the Roman World: Selected Accessions, 1953 and Other Noteworthy Pieces. MN 7:
71-90.
1965 A New Solidus of Theodosius II and Other Vota Solidi of the Period. In her Festal and Dated
Coins of the Roman Empire: Four Papers, NNM 153: 40-90. New York.
BRAMBILLA, C.
1870 Altre annotazioni numismatiche. Pavia.
BRATIANU, G. I.
1938 La distribution de lor et les raisons économiques de la division de Empire romain. In his.
Etudes byzantines d’histoire économique et sociale: 57-91. Paris.
BREGLIA, L.
1939 Un lingotto aureo di zecca imperiale romano. Bollettino del Circolo numismatico napoletano 20.2:
35-44.
BREHIER, L.
1906 Lorigine des titres impériaux a Byzance. BZ 15: 161-78.
BREITENSTEIN, N.
1946 De romerske mgntfund fra den Sjaellandske @gruppe. Nordisk Numismatiska Arsskrift: 1-34.
BRENOT, C.
1968 Un bronze de Zénon de I'atelier d’Antioche. BSFN 23: 323-4.
1971 Observations sur les orientations d’axes d’un groupe d’antoniniani de Victorin issus des
mémes coins de droits et de revers. BSFN 26: 135-8.
BRICKSTOCK, R. J.
1987 Copies of the Fel Temp Reparatio Coinage in Britain: A Study of Their Chronology and Archaeological
Significance including Gazetteers of Hoards and Site Finds, BAR British Series 176. Oxford.
Brizio, E.
1890 San Lazzaro: Di un tesoretto monetale scoperto lungo la via Emilia. Notizie degli Scavi: 106-7.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 305
Brooks, E. W.
1893 The Emperor Zenon and the Isaurians. English Historical Review 8: 209-38.
BROWNING, R.
1952 The Riot of A.D. 387 in Antioch. JRS 42: 13-20.
BRULET, R.
1975 Les monnaies de site du Bas-Empire en Belgique. Féderation des Cercles d’archéologie et d’histoire
de Belgique, 43e Congrés: Sint-Niklaas-Waes, 1974: 511-3. Sint-Niklaas.
BRUNETTI, L.
1966 Opus Monetale Cigoi. [Bologna].
1970 Dei multipl d’oro dell’Impero romano: Tres scripta. Trieste.
1973 Verso l’identificazione di frazioni auree non ancora descritta nella sistematica del tardo Im-
pero Romano. RIN 75: 187-96.
Bruun, P.
1952 The Constantinian Coinage of Arelate, Finska Fornminnensfo6reningens Tidskrift 52.2. Helsinki.
1961 Studies in Constantinian Chronology, NNM 146. New York.
1976 Notes on the Transmission of Imperial Images in’ Late Antiquity. In Studia Romana in honorem
Petri Krarup septuagenarii: 122-31. Odense.
BurcEss, R. W.
1986 The Ninth Consulship of Honorius, A.D. 411 and 412. Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie und Epigraphik
65: 211-21.
1988 Quinquennial Vota and the Imperial Consulship in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries, 337-511.
NC 148: 77-96.
BurneTT, A. M.
198la (Ed.) Coin Hoards from Roman Britain, 11, British Museum Occasional Papers 31. London.
1981b The Great Western Railway Hoard. In Burnett 198la: 109-11.
1984a (Ed.) Coin Hoards from Roman Britain, V, British Museum Occasional Papers 54. London.
1984b The Hovingham Park, Yorks., Treasure Trove. In Burnett 1984a: 116-8.
1984c The Otterbourne, Hants., Treasure Trove II. In Burnett 1984a: 119-34.
Burnett, A. M., AND A. R. HIGGOTT
1984 Compton Downs, Berks., Hoard. In Burnett 1984a: 145-50.
Burnett, A. M., AND P. H. ROBINSON
1984 The Bromham, Wilts., Treasure Trove. In Burnett 1984a: 100-12.
Burnett, A. M., AND J. B. WHITWELL
1981 Barton upon Humber Treasure Trove. In Burnett 198la: 113-21.
1984 Deepdale, Barrow-on-Humber, Treasure Trove (Addenda). In Burnett 1984a: 113-5.
BURSCHE, A.
1986 Directions of Contacts of the Roman Empire with the Mid-European Barbaricum in the Second
Part of the 3rd and 4th Centuries in the Light of Coin Finds. Polish Numismatic News 4 (suppl.
to WN 29): 33-44.
Bury, J. B.
1886 Note on the Emperor Olybrius. English Historical Review 1: 507-9.
1919 Justa Grata Honoria. J/RS 9: 1-13.
1923 History of the Later Roman Empire from the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian (A.D. 395
to A.D. 565), 2 vols. London.
BuTLer, C. M., AND D. M. METCALF
1967 Trace Elements in Byzantine Copper Coins: A Method of Non-Destructive Analysis. NCirc 75:
229-34.
Buttrey, T. V.
1976 The Coins. In Excavations at Carthage 1975 Conducted by the University of Michigan, 1: 157-97.
Tunis.
BuTtrey, T. V., AND R. B. HITCHNER
1978 The Coins—1976. In Excavations at Carthage 1976 Conducted by the University of Michigan, 1V:
99-163. Ann Arbor.
306 BIBLIOGRAPHY
CABALLERO ALCARAZ, J.
1965 Un pequeno bronce de Eufemia, emperatriz de Occidente. Numisma 75: 15-6.
Cann, H. A.
1937 Minzfunde, Kleinhtiningen, I: Trierer Siliquen des Valentinianus III. und des Theodosius
II. RSN 27: 425-30.
1942 Spatrémische Miinzen vom Spiegelhof in Basel. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fiir Ur-
geschichte 33: 124-40.
CALDERINI, A.
1919 Nuovi contributi alle questioni monetarie nei documenti dei papiri. RIN 32: 139-47.
Caticé, F. X.
1960 En torno a una posibile moneda barcelonesa del siglo IV. Cuaderno de arqueologia e historia de
la ciudad 1: 95-105. Barcelona.
CALLU, J. P.
1959 Follis singularis (A propos d’une inscription de Ghirza, Tripolitaine). Mélanges d’archéologie et
d'histoire, Ecole francaise de Rome, 71: 321-37.
1972 Sozoméne, V, 15 et la corporation des monétaires. BSFN 27: 271-3.
1973 Versions gréco-latines: Nummi follares. BSFN 28: 370-2.
1974 Remarques sur le trésor de Thamusida III: Les Divo Claudio en Afrique du Nord. Note ad-
ditionelle de Pierre Salama. Mélanges de l’Ecole francaise de Rome: Antiquité 86: 523-40.
1978a Problémes monétaires du quatriéme siécle (311-395). Antiquitas (Reihe 1) 29: 103-26.
1978b Le “centenarium” et l’enrichissement monétaire au Bas-Empire. Ktema 3: 301-16.
1980a_ Role et distribution des espéces de bronze de 348 a 392. In King 1980a: 41-93 (Eng. trans.
on 95-140 under the title “The Distribution and the Role of the Bronze Coinage from A.D
348 to 392”).
1980b_ Frappes et trésors d’argent de 324 a 392. In King 1980a: 175-212 (Eng. trans. on 213-54
under the title “Silver Hoards and Emissions from 324 to 392”).
1980c Les origines du “miliarensis”: Le teémoignage de Dardanius. RN® 22: 123-30.
1982 Le tarif d’Abydos et la réforme monétaire d’Anastase. Proceedings of the 9th International Con-
gress of Numismatics, Berne, Sept. 1979, 11: 731-40. Louvain-la-Neuve and Luxembourg.
1985 DN: La genése d’une titulature monétaire. BSFN 40: 616-9.
1989a Deux trésors valentiniens de Cherchel. BSFN 44: 671-6.
1989b _Patrologie latine et numismatique: Quelques rencontres. QT 18: 337-62.
CALLU, J. P., AND J. N. BARRANDON
1978 Uranius Antonin et deux autres notes de métrologie tardive orientale. Revue du Nord 60: 833-
44.
1987 Note sur les sous gaulois au Ve s. de notre ére. In Studi per Laura Breglia (= BdN, Suppl. ai
no. 4), II: 197-204. Rome.
CaLLu, J. P., C. BRENOT, J. N. BARRANDON, AND J. POIRIER
1985 Aureus obryziacus. In L’or monnayé, I, Cahiers Ernest Babelon 2: 81—111. Paris.
CAMERON, A.
1981 The Empress and the Poet: Paganism and Politics at the Court of Theodosius II. Yale Classzcal
Studies 27: 217-89.
CANDIDUS
1851 Fragmenta. In Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, ed. C. Mueller, [V: 135-7. Paris.
CARCASSONNE, C. :
1977 La livre romaine: A propos d’une question posée. BSFN 32: 230.
Carson, R. A. G.
1950 A Roman Imperial Mint at Narbonne? NC® 10: 144-8.
1956 System and Product in the Roman Mint. In Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mat-
tingly, ed. R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland: 227-39. Oxford.
1958 The Geneva Forgeries. NC® 18: 47-58.
1959 Roman Coins Acquired by the British Museum, 1939-1959. NC® 19: 1-16.
1975 Les trésors tardifs de monnaies d’or et d'argent et la fin de la Bretagne romaine. BCEN 12:
61-4.
1976 Gold and Silver Coin Hoards and the End of Roman Britain. British Museum Yearbook 1: €7—
82.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 307
1980 Late Roman and Early Byzantine Solidi from India. Numismatic Digest, Numismatic Society of
Bombay, 4.2 (Dec. 1980): 20-3.
1981 Principal Coins of the Romans, U1: The Dominate, A.D. 294—498. British Museum, London.
1990 Coins of the Roman Empire. London-New York.
Carson, R. A. G., AND A. M. BURNETT
1979a (Eds.) Recent Coin Hoards from Roman Britain, British Museum Occasional Papers 5. London.
1979b The Otterbourne (Hants.) Treasure Trove (1978). In Carson and Burnett 1979a: 106-9.
1979c The Whorlton (Yorkshire) Hoard (1810). In Carson and Burnett 1979a: 110-7.
Casey, P. J.
1979 (Ed.) The End of Roman Britain, BAR British Series 71. Oxford.
CASEY, J., AND R. REECE
1974 (Eds.) Coins and the Archaeologist, BAR 4. Oxford. (2nd revised edn. London, 1988.)
CASTELFRANCO, G.
1937 Larte della moneta nel Tardo impero. La Critica d’arte 2: 11-21.
1940 Movimenti stilistici dell’arte della moneta del IV secolo. Att: del V Congresso internazionale di
Studi bizantini, Roma, 1936, I1: 69-72. Rome.
Castritius, H.
1983 Das Ende der Geldwirtschaft im Rémischen Reich am Beispiel des Donau- Alpenraumes. In
Deutscher Numismatikertag Miinchen 1981, Vortrige: 30-9. Munich.
CATALOGO . . . OVIEDO
1975 Catalogo de las salas de cultura romana del Museo Arqueolégico, Oviedo. Oviedo.
CAVEDONI, C.
1857 Médailles du temps d’Honorius portant des signes chrétiens mélés a des types chrétiens. RN?
2: 304-14.
CEsANO, L.
1913 Della moneta enea corrente in Italia nell’ultima eta imperiale romana e sotto i re Ostrogoti.
RIN 26: 511-51.
Cesano, S. L.
1940a Un nuovo medaglione aureo di Teodosio I e la figura di Constantinopolis. Studi di Numismatica
1: 69-82.
1940b Un medaglione aureo di Libio Severo e l'ultima moneta di Roma imperiale. Studi di Numis-
matica 1: 83-98.
CHABOUILLET, A.
1883 Observations sur deux médaillons d’or d’Honorius et de Placidie ainsi que sur d’autres mé-
daillons acquis récemment par le Cabinet des Médailles. RN® 1: 70-91.
CHANEL, E.
1912 Sépulture double de I’époque franque a Izenave (Ain). Bulletin archéologique du Comité des tra-
vaux historiques et scientifiques: 265-74.
CHASTAGNOL, A.
1966 Le Sénat romain sous le regne d’Odoacre, Antiquitas, 4th ser., 3. Bonn.
1973 Le repli sur Arles des services administratifs gaulois. Revue historique 249: 23—40.
1975 Un nouveau document sur la majorina? BSFN 30: 854-7.
1987 L'Italie et l'Afrique au Bas-Empire: Etudes administratives et prosopographiques. Lille.
CHIFLET, J. J.
1655 Anastasis Childerici I Francorum regis. Antwerp.
CuiRILA, E., N. GUDEA, AND J. STRATAN
1974 Drei Munzhorte des 4. Jahrhunderts aus dem Banat, Muzeul de Istorie si Etnografie Lugoj. Lugoj.
CuriIsT, K.
1960 Antike Miinzfunde Siidwestdeutschlands, Vestigia: Beitrage zur alten Geschichte 3.I—-II. Heidel-
berg.
CHRONICON PASCHALE
1832 Ed. L. Dindorf, 2 vols. Bonn.
308 BIBLIOGRAPHY
CIL
1862— Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Berlin.
c/
1929 Codex Justinianus, ed. P. Kriiger, 10th ed. Berlin.
Ciark, M. KITSON
1935 A Gazetteer of the Roman Remains in East Yorkshire, Yorkshire Archaeological Society Reports,
no. 5. Leeds.
CLARKE, R.
1936 A Theodosian Hoard from Norfolk. NC*® 16: 255-7, 320.
CLEMENTE, G.
1968 La“Notitia Dignitatum.” Cagliari.
CLOVER, F. M.
1971 Flavius Merobaudes: A Translation and Historical Commentary, Trans. of the American Philoscph-
ical Society, n.s. 61, Part 1. Philadelphia.
1978a The Family and Early Career of Anicius Olybrius. Historia 27: 169-96.
1978b Carthage in the Age of Augustine. In Excavations at Carthage 1976 Conducted by the University
of Michigan, ed. J. H. Humphrey, IV: 1-14. Ann Arbor.
1980 The Pseudo-Boniface and the Historia Augusta. Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1977/1978:
73-95. Bonn.
1986 Felix Karthago. DOP 40: 1-16. (Repr. w. minor changes in Tradition and Innovation in Late
Antiquity, ed. F. M. Clover and R. S. Humphreys, Madison-London, 1989: 129-69.)
CLover, F. M., AND R. S. HUMPHREYS
1989 (Eds.) Tradition and Innovation in Late Antiquity. Madison-London.
COHEN, H.
1880-92 Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’empire romain, 8 vols., 2nd ed. Paris.
CONDURACHI, E.
1935 Lorigine et l’évolution du loros impérial. Arta si Arheologia 11-12 (Jassy, 1935-6): 37—45.
1942 Le prix de l’or au début du Ve siécle a propos d’un passage de Symmaque. Revue historique du
Sud-Est européen 19: 419-22.
ConsTANs, L. A. .
1921 Arles antique, Bibliothéque des Ecoles frangaises d’Athénes et de Rome 119. Paris.
Cope, L. H.
1968 The Argentiferous Bronze Alloys of the Large Tetrarchic Folles of A.D. 294-307. NC? 8:115—
49.
1972 The Metallurgical Analysis of Roman Imperial Silver and Aes Coinage. In Hall and Metcalf
1972: 3-47.
COTHENET, A.
1967 Bronze inédit d’Arcadius. BCEN 4: 18.
COTHENET, A., AND J. LAFAURIE
1969 Trésor de monnaies d’or de Valentinien III trouvé a Argay (Cher). BSFN 24: 443-4.
CourRCELLE, P.
1964 Histoire littéraire des grandes invasions germaniques, 3rd ed. Paris.
1966 Le serpent a face humaine dans la numismatique impériale du Ve siécle. In Mélanges d’archéo-
logie et d’histoire offerts a André Piganiol, 1: 343-53. Paris.
Courtoais, C.
1954 Les monnaies de Gildo. RN® 16: 71-7.
1955 Les Vandales et l'Afrique. Paris.
Courtois, C., L. Lescui1, C. PERRAT, AND C. SAUMAGNE
1955 Tablettes Albertini: Actes privés de l’époque vandale (fin du Ve siécle). Paris.
CRASTER, H. H. E.
1912 Hoards of Roman Gold Coins Found in Britain. Part I. Second and Fourth Century Hoards
Found at Corbridge, 1908-1911. NC* 12: 265-312.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 309
CRAWFORD, M. H.
1974 Roman Republican Coinage, 2 vols. Cambridge.
CTH
1905 Codex Theodosianus, ed. T. Mommsen and P. M. Meyer. Berlin.
Cu ic, V.
1972 Moneda marunta Romano-Bizantina din secolul al V-lea e.n. si unele replici in plumb, de la
Izvoarele, jud. Constanta (Romano-Byzantine fractional coins of the fifth century A.D., and
lead imitations of them, from Izvoarele, district of Constanza). Pontica 5: 269-300.
CurIna, R.
1983 Le monete. In Ravenna e il porto di Classe: Venti anni di ricerche archeologiche tra Ravenna e Classe,
ed. G. Bermond Montanari: 204-14. Bologna.
Cur-e, A. O.
1923 The Treasure of Traprain. Glasgow.
DaGRON, G.
1974 Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 a 451. Paris.
DaGRON, G., AND C. MORRISSON
1975 Le “Kentenarion” dans les sources byzantines. RN® 17: 145-62.
DAREMBERG, C. V., AND E. SAGLIO
1877-1919 (Eds.) Dictionnaire des antiquités grecques et romaines, d’apres les textes et les monuments, 5 vols. Paris.
DaTrarI, G.
1918 Del miliarense e della siliqua nell’epoca costantiniana. RIN 31: 209-33.
Davies, J. A.
1986 The Meare Heath, Somerset, Hoard and the Coinage of Barbarous Radiates. NC 146: 107—
18.
De CEREMONIIS
1829-30 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De ceremonits aulae byzantinae, ed. J. J. Reiske, 2 vols. Bonn.
DEER, J.
1950 Der Ursprung der Kaiserkrone. Schweizer Beitrége zur allgemeinen Geschichte 8: 51-87.
1961 Der Globus des spatrémischen und des byzantinischen Kaisers: Symbol oder Insigne? BZ 54:
53-85, 291-318.
Decanl, M.
1959 Il tesoro romano barbarico di Reggio Emilia, Florence.
DEICHMANN, F.
1969-76 Ravenna, Hauptstadt des spaitantiken Abendlandes, 2 vols. in 4. Wiesbaden.
DELBRUECK, R.
1929 Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmdler. Berlin-Leipzig.
1933 Spédtantike Kaiserportrats von Konstantinus Magnus bis zum Ende des Westreichs. Berlin-Leipzig.
DELMAIRE, R.
1983 Untrésor d’Aes 4 au Musée de Boulogne-sur-Mer (Notes sur la circulation monétaire en Gaule
du Nord au début du Ve siécle). Trésors monétaires 5: 131-85.
1985a Notes sur la périodicité du chrysargyre. BSFN 40: 621-3.
1985b Notes sur le chrysargyre et sa périodicité. RN® 27: 120-9.
DELMAIRE, R., AND E. FONTAINE
1987 Le monnayage du 4e siécle sur les sites de Vaulx-Vraucourt (Pas-de-Calais). In Bastien 1987:
353-69.
DEMBSKI, G. :
1977 Die antiken Miinzschatzfunde aus Osterreich. NZ 91: 3—64.
Demo, -
1982 Einige Beispiele fiir die Nachahmung antiker Miinzen auf der Grundlage von Miinzfunden
im Slawonisch-Syrmischen Raum. Vjesntk Arheoloskog Muzeja u Zagrebu® 15: 211-42.
1987 Glicerijeva tremisa u Zemaljskom Muzeju u Sarajevu i Luigi Cigoi kao njezin autor. Numiz-
matitke viyjesti 30: 43-55.
310
1988
DEMOUGEOT,
1951
1962
1974
1975
1979
1980
1983
1986
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Mint in Salona: Nepos and Ovida (474—481/2). In Studia Jeloénik 1988: 247-70.
E.
De l’unité a la division de Empire romain 394—410. Paris.
Les invasions germaniques et la rupture des relations entre la Bretagne et la Gaule. MA 68:
1-50.
Constantin III, l’empereur d’Arles. In Hommage a Andre Dupont: 83-125. Montpellier.
La Notitia dignitatum et histoire de l’Empire d’Occident au debut du Ve siécle. Latomus 34:
1079-1134.
La formation de l'Europe et les invasions barbares, 11. De l'avénement de Diocletien (284) a Voccupation
germanique de l’Empire romain d’Occident (début du Ve siécle), 2 parts. Paris.
Les sacs de Tréves au début du Ve siécle. In Lafaurie 1980, 93-7. Paris.
A propos des solidi gallici du Ve siécle aprés J.-C. Revue historique 270: 3-30.
La symbolique du lion et du serpent sur les solidi des empereurs d’Occident de la premiére
moitié du Ve siécle. RN® 28: 94-118.
DENNISON, W.
1918
A Gold Treasure of the Late Roman Period, University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series
12.2: 85-175. New York.
Depeyror, G.
1982
1983
1984
1986
1987
1988a
1988b
Le numéraire gaulois du IVe siécle: Aspects quantitatifs, 2 vols., BAR International Series 127.
Oxford.
Lor et la société du Bas-Empire (IVe—Ve siécles). Numisma 180-5: 81-116.
La silique a la fin du IVe siécle. In La Zecca di Milano. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio,
Milano, 9-14 maggio 1983: 199-216. Milan.
Les solidi gaulois de Valentinien III. RSN 65: 111-31.
Le Bas-Empire romain: Economie et numismatique. Paris.
Euméne, Epiphane, et le systeme monétaire de Dioclétien. MONG 28: 37-40.
La durée d'utilisation des solidi romains. In Studia Jeloénik 1988: 213-7.
DEVALUATIONS
1978
Les dévaluations a Rome, 2 vols., Collection de I’Ecole francaise de Rome 137, 1978-80. Rome.
DIEUDONNE, A.
1922
1943
La livre romaine. RN* 25:82—4.
Metal brut et metal monnayé dans |’Antiquité. RN® 7:175-—6.
DIEULEFAIT, F.
1988
DOC
1966-73
DOC AnT
1962—5
Downey, G.
1961
1962
Doyen, J. M.
1985
1986
DRESSEL, H.
1898
Solidus d’Honorius trouvé a Auch (Gers). BSFN 43:369.
Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection,
by A. R. Bellinger and P. Grierson, 3 vols. Washington, D.C.
Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Medieval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, by Mar-
vin C. Ross, 2 vols. Washington, D.C.
A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest. Princeton.
Antioch in the Age of Theodosius the Great. Norman, Oklahoma.
Un trésor oriental du début du Ve siécle. RBN 131:133-—62.
Musées de Charleville-Meziéres. Catalogue des monnaies antiques. II. De la réforme monétaire de Dio-
clétien 4 la chute de Empire (294—476). Monnaies des royaumes barbares, byzantines, mérovingiennes
et sassanides. Charleville-Meziéres.
Fortsetzung der Erwerbungsberichte [des Kéniglichen Mitinzkabinetts in den Jahren 1890-
97). Z{N 21:210—49.
Du CANGE, C. DU FRESNE
1680
Historia Byzantina. Paris.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 311
Dumas, F.
1975 Le tombeau de Childéric. In Dans la Normandie souterraine, Musée départemental des Anti-
quités, Rouen, Exposition 3 juillet-2 novembre 1975: 1-44.
DuRLIAT, J.
1980 La valeur relative de lor, de l’argent et du cuivre dans I'Empire protobyzantin (IVe—VIIle
siécle). RN® 22: 138—54.
1987 Philologie et numismatique: A propos de quelques prix protobyzantines. Rhythmes de la pro-
duction monétaire, de l’Antiquité a nos jours. Actes du Colloque international organisé a Paris du
10 au 12 janvier 1986. Numismatica Lovaniensia 7: 343-57. Louvain-la-Neuve. (Actually
publ. 1990.)
Durr, N.
1964 Catalogue des poids byzantins. Geneva. (Extract from Genava, XII, 1964.)
Durr, N., AND P. BASTIEN
1984 ‘Trésor de solidi (383-388). RSN 63: 205—40.
Duvat, N.
1959 Recherches sur la datation des inscriptions chrétiennes d’Afrique en dehors de la Mauritanie
In Atti del Terzo Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia greca e latina (Roma 4—8 settembre 1957):
242-62. Rome.
EBcIOGLy, I.
1966 Izmit Definesi. Annual of the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul 13-14: 166-74.
ECKHEL, J.
1826-8 Doctrina numorum veterum, 8 vols. Vienna.
ELMER, G.
1930 Wanderungen rémischer Miinzamter im IVten Jahrhundert. Mitteilungen der numismatischen
Gesellschaft in Wien 16: 136.
1935 Die Einfiihrung des Tremissis in die rémische Miinzpragung. Deutsche Miinzblatter 55: 284-8.
1936 Eugenius: Eine historisch-numismatische Studie. NZ 69: 29-51.
1956 Verzeichnis der rémischen Reichsprdgungen von Augustus bis Anastasius, 2nd revised ed. Graz. (1st
ed., Vienna, 1933.)
ENSSLIN, W.
1942 Zur Torqueskrénung und Schilderhebung bei der Kaiserwahl. Klio 35: 268-98.
ERCOLANI Coccul, E.
1976 Le tre fasi della zecca di Ravenna. CARB 23: 181-94.
1984 Imperi romano e bizantino, regni barbarici in Italia, attraverso le monete del Museo Nazionale di Ra-
venna. Ravenna.
1988 II circolante divisionale, a Ravenna, fra la fine del V e gli inizi del VI sec. d. C. In Studia
Jeloénik 1988: 285-94.
EscoRTELL Ponsopa, M.
1973 El tesorillo romano-bizantino de Chapipi. Archtvum 23: 43—54.
1974 Guia-Catdlogo del Museo Arqueolégico Provincial. Oviedo.
Evans, A. J.
1915 Notes on the Coinage and Silver Currency in Roman Britain from Valentinian I to Constan-
tine III. NC* 15: 433-519.
EVANS, J.
1888 Ona Hoard of Roman Coins Found at East Harptree, near Bristol. NC* 8: 22-46.
Evans, M. M.
1906 Hair-Dressing of Roman Ladies as Illustrated on Coins. NC* 6: 37—65.
Evers, J. H.
1966 The Haarlemmermeer Hoard, Late-Roman Bronze Coins up to about A.D. 400. Oudheidkun-
dige Mededeelingen uit het Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 17: 31-101.
FAGERLIE, J. M.
1965 Contacts between Italy and the Baltic in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries A.D. Congresso interna-
zionale di numismatica, Roma 1961, I1. Atti: 411-20. Rome.
1967 Late Roman and Byzantine Solidi Found in Sweden and Denmark, NNM, no. 157. New York.
312 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1969 Roman and Byzantine Medallions in the Collections of the American Numismatic Society. MN
15: 77-91.
FANTUzzI, M.
1801—4 Monumenti Ravennati de’ secoli di mezzo, 6 vols. Venice.
FeLtz, G. W. VAN DER
1845 Romeinsch gouden muntje. Algemene Kunst- en Letterbode: 430-1.
FINK, W.
1981 Das frithbyzantinische Monogramm. Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik 30: 75-86.
FMRD
1960— Die Fundmiinzen der rémischen Zeit in Deutschland, ed. H. Gebhart and G. Kraft, I ff. Berlin.
FREEMAN, E. A.
1904 Western Europe in the Fifth Century: An Aftermath. London.
FRIEDLANDER, J.
1860 Sou d’or d’Aelia Galla Placidia. RBN® 4: 237-8.
1880 Der Miinzfund von Rathstube. ZfN 7: 355-6.
FROEHNER, W.
1878 Les médaillons de Empire romain depuis le regne d’Auguste jusqu’a Priscus Alttale. Paris.
FROLOw, A.
1948 Numismatique byzantine et archéologie des lieux saints, au sujet d’une monnaie de l’impéra-
trice Eudocie (Ve siécle). Mémorial Louis Petit (Archives de |’Orient chrétien 1): 78—94. Paris.
FUEG, F.
1988 Ein schweres Miliarense von Anastasius I (491—518 n. Chr.). SM 38: 13.
FULFORD, M.
1978 Coin Circulation and Mint Activity in the Late Roman Empire: Some Economic Implications.
Archaeological Journal 135: 67-114.
GacE, J.
1933 Stauros Nikopoios: La Victoire impériale dans |’Empire chrétien. Revue d'histoire et de philosophie
religieuses 13: 370—400.
GaLINbo, M. LECHUGA
1985 Numismatica tardoromana de la regién de Murcia. In Antigiiedad y cristianisma. Monografias
historicas sobre la antigiiedad tardwva II, del Conventus Carthaginiensis a la Chora de Tudmir. Perspec-
tivas de la historia de Murcia entre los siglos III—VIII, Murcia.
GARNIER, J. P.
1964 Petit bronze de Léon ler frappé en Italie. BSFN 19: 385-6.
1965 Petit bronze inédit de Placide Valentinien frappé en Italie. BSFN 20: 428-9.
GARRUCCI, R.
1853a Di un exagio dei solidi dell’imperatore Onorio. Annali di numismatica 1: 200-1.
1853b_Pesi antichi del Museo Kircheriano. Annali di numismatica 1: 201-11.
GERASIMOV, T.
1939 Dva kusnorimski medaliona ot Bulgariya (Iwo late Roman medallions from Bulgaria). zves-
tiya na Arkheologicheskiya Instityt 13: 337-9.
1940 Ein Goldmedallion des Theodosius II. Bericht tiber des VI. Internationalen Kongress fiir Archdol-
ogie, Berlin, 21-26 August 1939: 596-7. Berlin.
GERKE, F.
1966 Liconografia delle monete imperiali dall’Augusta Galla Placidia alla fine dell’Impero
d’Occidente. CARB 13: 163-203.
GILLES, K. J.
1982 Die Trierer Miinzpragung im friihen Mittelalter. Rheinisches Landesmuseum Trier, Koblenz.
1983 Zur Miinzpragung des Honorius in Trier. Trierer Zeitschrift 46: 225-9.
GittI, A.
1925
GNECCHI, F.
1897
1908
1912
GOsL, R.
1978
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Eudossia e Genserico. Archivio storico italiano’, 4: 3-38.
Un ripostiglio miserabile. RIN 10: 19-22.
The Coin Types of Imperial Rome. London. (Reprint Chicago, 1978.)
I medagliont romani, 3 vols. Milan.
Antike Numismatik, 2 vols. Munich.
GoopacreE, H.
1922
1928-33
1931
1938
1957
The Bronze Coinage of the Late Roman Empire. London. (Repr. from NCirc 1921-2.)
See Goodacre 1957.
Notes on Some Rare Byzantine Coins. NC* 11: 151-9.
Byzantine Studies. Transactions of the International Numismatic Congress, London, 1936, ed. J.
Allan, H. Mattingly, and E. S. G. Robinson: 193-7. London.
A Handbook of the Coinage of the Byzantine Empire, 2nd ed. London. (Reprint of a work first
published in 3 parts in 1928-33.)
GOopBURN, R., AND P. BARTHOLOMEW
1976
GorinI, G.
1979a
1979b
1984
1987a
1987b
(Eds.) Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum. Papers Presented to the Conference in Oxford, December 13 to
15, 1974, BAR Supplementary Series 15. Oxford.
Aspetti della circolazione monetaria ad Aquileia e nel suo territorio in eta antica. Antichita
Altoadriatiche 15: 413-37.
Tre ripostigli monetali della X Regio. Archeologia Veneta 2: 139-44.
Le monete di Mediolanum ed Aquileia nei secoli IV e V. In La Zecca di Milano. Atti del Convegno
internazionale di Studio, Milano 9-14 maggio 1983: 189-97. Milan.
Un solido di Antemio inedito. RIN 89: 209.
Il ripostiglio di Alte Ceccato (Vicenza) (367—402). In Bastien 1987: 267-79.
GouBASTOFF, G.
1908
Goyau, G.
1891
GRABAR, A.
1936
Une piéce inédite d’Aelia Galla Placidia. NCirc 16: 10872-3. (Reproduced, but without the
illustration, on p. 168 of his “Contributions au Corpus Numorum Romanorum,” RIN 22, 1909:
165-8.)
Chronologie de l’Empire romain. Paris.
L’empereur dans l'art byzantin. Paris.
GrecorreE, H., AND M. A. KUGENER
1928
Quand est né Il’empereur Théodose II? Byzantion 4: 337-48.
GREGOROVIUS, F.
1882 Athenais: Geschichte einer byzantinischen Kaiserin. Leipzig. (Repr. Vienna, 1926.)
GREN, E.
1934 Der Miinzfund von Viminacium: Vorldufiger Bericht, Skrifter utgivna av K. Humanistiska
Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala 29.2. Uppsala-Leipzig. (See also Pearce’s rev. in NC® 16,
1936: 330-3.)
GRENIER, A.
1931-4 Manuel d’archéologie gallo-romaine, 2 vols. in 3. Paris.
GrIcourT, J.
1964 Découvertes de monnaies antiques dans le Douaisis au début du XIXe siécle. Revue du Nord
46: 223-7.
GRIERSON, P.
1948 Three Unpublished Coins of Zeno (474-91). NC® 8: 223-6.
1956 The Roman Law of Counterfeiting. In Mattingly 1956: 240-61.
1959 The Tablettes Albertini and the Value of the Solidus in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries A.D. JRS
49: 73-80. (Reprinted in his Dark Age Numismatics, London, 1979, no. IV.)
314 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1960 The Monetary Reforms of “Abd al-Malik: Their Metrological Basis and Their Financial Re-
percussions. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 3: 241-64.
1961 Coins monétaires et officines a l’époque du Bas-Empire. Gazette suisse de numismatique 11: 1-8.
1962 The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337-1042). DOP 16: 1—60.
1965 Trace Elements in Byzantine Copper Coins of the Sixth and Seventh Centuries. In Dona Num-
ismatica Walter Hdvernick zum 23 Januar 1965 dargebracht, ed. P. Berghaus and Gert Hatz: 29—
35. Hamburg.
1967 The Monetary Reforms of Anastasius and Their Economic Consequences. In The Patterns of
Monetary Development in Phoenicia and Palestine in Antiquity, ed. A. Kindler: 183-301. Jerusalem.
1982 Byzantine Coins. London-Berkeley-Los Angeles.
1983 A Rediscovered Siliqua of Valentinian III (425-55). NC 143: 217-8.
1985 The Date of Theodoric’s Gold Medallion. Hikuin 11: 19-26.
1988 An Enigmatic Coin Legend: IMP XXXXII on Solidi of Theodosius II. In Studia Jeloénik 1988:
279-84.
GRIERSON, P., AND M. BLACKBURN
1986 Medieval European Coinage, with a Catalogue of the Coins in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, I.
The Early Middle Ages (5th—1 0th Centuries). Cambridge.
GriFFo, P.
1956 Ripostiglio di monete auree del V sec. d. C. da Butera (Caltanisetta). AIJN 3: 167-77.
GRUEBER, H. A.
1874 Roman Medallions in the British Museum. London.
1913. The First Corbridge Find. NC* 13: 31-56.
GRUMEL, V.
1951 LIllyricum de la mort de Valentinien ler (375) a la mort de Stilicon (408). REB 9: 5—46.
1954 Numismatique et histoire: L’époque valentinienne. REB 12: 7-31.
GRUNHAGEN, W.
1954 Der Schatzfund von Gross Bodungen, Romanisch-Germanische Forschungen 21. Berlin.
GuEy, J.
1955-6 Trésors de monnaies romaines en Europe Orientale. Mél. d’arch. et d’hist. de l’Ecole francaise de
Rome 67 (1955): 189-216; 68 (1956): 139-203.
1965a_ Encore le solidus et le follis des Tablettes Albertini: 1400 folles (ou seulement 350?) au solidus.
BSFN 20: 455-6.
1965b Ne vaudrait-il pas mieux dire MILIARENSIS que MILIARENSE? BSFN 20: 492-3, 504-6.
1975 Encore le poids de la livre romaine: Lerreur systématique et la tolérance. BSFN 30: 736.
1976 Peut-on estimer la livre romaine au cg. prés? Non. RN® 18: 110-14.
GuEy, J., AND C. CARCASSONNE
1980 Livre romaine, kilo et monnaies. In Mélanges de littérature et d’épigraphie latines, d’histoire an-
cienne et d’archéologie: Hommage a la mémoire de Pierre Wuilleumier, Coll. d’Etudes latines, Série
scientifique, fasc. 35: 151—8. Paris.
Haun, W.
1973 Eine Anfangsemission des Kaisers Zeno und ein Schatz friihbyzantinischer Solidi bei Jericho.
MONG 18: 1-4.
1973-81 Moneta Imperi Byzantini, 3 vols. Veroffentlichungen der Numismatischen Kommission 1, 4, 10.
Vienna.
1976 Die Fundmiinzen der Romischen Zeit in Osterreich. 11/1. Carnuntum. Vienna.
1978 The Numismatic History of Cherson in Early Byzantine Times—A Survey. NCirc 86: 414-5,
471-2, 521-2.
1979 Die éstliche Gold- und Silberpragung unter Theodosius II. In Litterae numismaticae Vindobo-
nenses Roberto Gébl dedicatae: 103-28. Vienna.
1981 New Light on the Thessalonican moneta aun in the Second Half of the Sixth Century. NC 141:
178-82.
1984a Die letzten Jahren der Mediolanenser Miinzpragung vor der Schliessung der Miinzstatte
durch Theoderich. In La Zecca di Milano. Atti del Convegno internazionale di Studio, Milano 9—i 4
maggio 1983, ed. G. Gorini: 229-40. Milan.
1984b Die Miinzpragung fiir Aelia Ariadne. In BYZANTIOZ2: Festschrift fiir Herbert Hunger zum 70.
Geburtstag: 101—6. Vienna.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 315
1986a Das Wertsystem der vandalischen Kupfermiinzen. JNG 36: 145-53.
1986b Das R6merreich der Byzantiner aus numismatischer Sicht. RSN 65: 175-89.
1987 Ein Minimifund des friihen 6. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. aus Massafra bei Tarent. Litterae Numis-
maticae Vindobonenses 3: 95-116. (Supersedes Travaglini 1974.)
1988 Die Miinzstatte Rom unter den Kaisern Julius Nepos, Zeno, Romulus und Basiliscus (474—
491). RIN 90: 351-66.
1989 Moneta Imperi Romani, Moneta Imperi Byzantini: Die Ostpragung des rémischen Reiches im 5. Jahr-
hundert (408-491), Verdffentlichungen der numismatischen Kommission 20. Vienna.
1990 Der Anteil der Miinzstatte Thessalonica an der Pragung von Miliarensia im 5. Jahrhundert.
MONG 30: 7-10.
HAHN, W., AND W. E. METCALF
1988 Studies in Early Byzantine Gold Coinage, Numismatic Studies 17. New York.
Haines, G. C.
1946 Some Rare Roman and Byzantine Coins. NC® 6: 28-35.
HALL, E. T., anp D. M. METCALF
1972 (Eds.) Methods of Chemical and Metallurgical Analysis of Ancient Coinage, RNS Special Publications
8. London.
HAMMER, J.
1908 Die Feingehalt der griechischen und rémischen Miinzen. ZfN 26: 1-144.
HAMPEL, J.
1905 Altertiimer des friihen Mittelalters in Ungarn, 3 vols. Brunswick.
HarRISON, R. M.
1981 The Emperor Zeno’s Real Name. BZ 74: 27-8.
HASLUCK, F. W.
1910 Cyztcus. Cambridge.
HAUvBERG, P.
1894 Skandinaviens fund af romersk guld- en s¢lvmynt fgr aar 550. Aarbgger for nordisk oldkyndighed
og historie: 352-76.
1895 Médailles romaines d’or et d’argent d’avant le milieu du VIe siécle trouvées dans les pays
scandinaves. Mémoires de la Société royale des antiquaires du Nord: 381-405.
HAVERNICK, W.
1929 Miinzen der Merowingerzeit aus rheinischen Graberfeldern (Schwarzrheindorf, Ober-Olm,
Dietersheim). Mainzer Zeitschrift 24—25 (1929-30): 100-4.
HayTER, A. G. K.
1926 Coins. In J. P. Bushe-Fox, First Report on the Excavation of the Roman Fort at Richborough, Kent
(= Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London 6: 106-73.
Oxford).
HENpY, M. F.
1970 On the Administrative Basis of the Byzantine Coinage c. 400 — c. 900 and the Reforms of
Heraclius. University of Birmingham Historical Journal 12: 129-54.
1972a Aspects of Coin Production and Fiscal Administration in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine
Period. NC’ 12: 117-39.
1972b Mint and Fiscal Administration under Diocletian, His Colleagues, and His Successors, A.D.
305-24. JRS 62: 75-82.
1985 Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy c. 300-1450. Cambridge.
HERRI, F.
1847 Médaillon d’or d’Honorius. RBN 3: 209-12.
HEURGON, J.
1960 Sur un sou d’or attribué a Arcadius. BSFN 15: 421.
HIESTAND, R.
1988 Asketen und Miinzbilder: Oder vom Nutzen der Kirchengeschichte ftir die Numismatik. RSN
67: 97-111.
316
BIBLIOGRAPHY
HILDYARD, E. J. W.
1948 The Edington (Somerset) Hoard of Siliquae. NC® 8: 82-5.
HI, G. F.
1906 Roman Silver Coins from Grovely Wood, Wilts. NC* 6: 330-47.
1908 Two Hoards of Roman Coins. II. Silver Coins of the Late Fourth Century from Icklingham,
Suffolk. NC* 8: 215-21. (The hoard generally known as “Icklingham I.” For later hoards see
Pearce 1929a, 1936a.)
1924-5 Becker the Counterfeiter, 2 vols. London.
HILL, P. V.
1946a The Redenhall (Norfolk) Hoard, c. 1895. NC® 6: 47-9.
1946b The Worle Camp (Somerset) Hoard. NC® 6: 153-6.
1946c The Wiveliscombe (Somerset) Hoard, 1946. NC® 6: 163-5.
1949 “Barbarous Radiates”: Imitations of Third-Century Roman Coins, NNM, no. 112. New York.
1950 Barbarous Imitations of Fourth-Century Roman Coins. NC® 10: 233-70.
195la Notes on Some Barbarous Coins from Bow Hill, Sussex. NC® 11: 126-9.
1951b A Hoard of Barbarous Radiates. NC® 11: 91-108.
1952 A Hoard of Barbarous Radiates from East Cornwall. NC® 12: 96-8.
1953 A Rare Barbarous Overstrike. NC® 13: 134-5.
Hitt, P. V., J. P. C. KENT, AND R. A. G. CARSON
1960 Late Roman Bronze Coinage, A.D. 324—498. London.
HILLIGER, B.
1933 Die Kupferrechnung der spatrémischen Kaiserzeit. Numismatik 2: 59-60.
Ho um, K. G.
1976 Family Life in the Theodosian House. Kleronomia 8: 280-92.
1977 Pulcheria’s Crusade of A.D. 421-22 and the Ideology of Imperial Victory. Greek, Roman and
Byzantine Studies 18: 153-72.
1982 Theodosian Empresses. Berkeley, Calif.
Howzer, H.
1944 Christian and Secular Grafhti on Late Roman and Byzantine Gold Pieces. Numismatic Review
2: 33-47.
HUBL, A.
1910 Die Miinzsammlung des Stiftes Schotten in Wien, I. Vienna.
HULTSCH, F.
1864-6 (Ed.) Metrologicorum Scriptorum Reliquae. Leipzig.
1882 Griechische und rémische Metrologie, 2nd ed. Berlin.
Huszar, L.
1941 Die Geschichte der Auffindung des ersten Schatzes von Szilagysomly6 und von dessen Uber-
bringung nach Wien. Folia Archaeologica 3—4: 1-10. (In Magyar, with German summary.)
ILiEscu, O.
1965 Nouvelles informations relatives aux lingots romains d’or, trouvées en Transylvanie. Revue des
études sud-est européennes 3: 269-81.
ILUK, J.
1985 The Export of Gold from the Roman Empire to the Barbarian Countries from the 4th to the
6th Centuries. Miinstersche Beitrdge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 4.1: 79-102.
1987 Skarb solidéw znaleziony w 1764 r. w. Xanten (RFN). WN 31: 76-87.
Ivanov, T.
1980 Abritus—Rimski kastel i rannovizantiski grad v Dolna Mizza, |. Sofia.
JANSE, O. R.
1922a Notes sur les solidi romains et byzantins trouvés en Scandinavie. RN* 25: 33-48.
1922b Le travail de l’or en Suéde a l’époque mérovingienne. Etudes précédées d’un mémoire sur les solidi ro-
mains et byzantins trouvés en Suéde. Paris-Orléans.
JELOGNIK, A.
1967 Les multiples d’or de Magnence découverts a Emona. RN’ 9: 209-35.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 317
JENEMAN, H. R.
1985 Uber Ausfiihrung und Genauigkeit von Miinzwagungen in spatromischer und neuerer Zeit.
Trierer Zeitschrift fiir Geschichte und Kunst 48: 163-94.
JENNINGS, R.
1869 Find of Coins near Southampton. NC? 9: 372.
Jouns, C. M., AND P. W. POTTER
1985 The Canterbury Late Roman Treasure. Antiquaries Journal 65: 312-52.
JOHNSON, M. J.
1987 Late Antique Imperial Mausolea. Ann Arbor. (Reprint of a Princeton University dissertation,
1986.)
Jones, A. H. M.
1953 Inflation under the Roman Empire. Economic History Review® 5: 293-317.
1964 The Later Roman Empire 284-602, 3 vols. Oxford.
JorpDAN, H.
1871 Topographie des Stadt Rom im Alterthum, 2 vols. Berlin.
JUNDZILL, J.
1984 Das Geld in der lateinischen Christlichen Literatur des spdten rémischen Kaiserreiches, Akademia Teo-
logii Katolickiej, Studia Antiquitatis Christianae 3. Warsaw.
Jurert, A. C.
1938 La phonétique latine, 2nd ed. Strasbourg-Paris.
KaecI, W. E.
1968 Byzantium and the Decline of Rome. Princeton, N.].
KAHRSTEDT, U.
1910 Frauen auf antiken Miinzen. Klio 10: 261-314.
Katser-Raltss, M. R., AND N. KLUSSENDORF
1984 Der spatantike Goldmiinzschatz von Menzelen aus dem Jahre 1754: Ein Beispiel archival-
ischer Fiindtiberlieferung vom unterem Niederrhein. In Studien zu Fundmiinzen der Antike, I1.
Aufsdtze, ed. M. R. Alféldi: 1-51. Berlin.
Kann, H. J.
1980 Ein unbekanntes spatantikes Notgeld aus Trier. Petermdnnchen, Nachrichten zur Trierer Num-
ismatik 6: 1-3.
KANTOROWICZ, E.
1960 On the Golden Marriage Belt and the Marriage Rings of the Dumbarton Oaks Collection.
DOP 14: 1-16.
KARWIESE, S.
1974 Aguntum—Das Ende einer Stadt im Spiegel der Miinzfunde: Eine numismatisch-archdologisch-
historische Untersuchung, Beitrage zur rémerzeitlichen Bodenforschung in Osterreich 2. Vi-
enna.
KENNER, F.
1888 R6émische Goldbarren mit Stempeln. NZ 20: 19-46.
KENT, J. P. C.
1952 Coin Evidence, and the Evacuation of Hadrian’s Wall. Transactions of the Cumberland and West-
morland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society 51: 4-15.
1954 Mr. Wood’s Hoard of Late Roman Silver Coins. NC® 14: 209-11.
1956a Coin Evidence for the Abandonment of a Frontier Province. Carnuntina, R6mische Forschun-
gen in Niederésterreich 3, ed. E. Swoboda: 85—90. Graz-Cologne.
1956b Gold Coinage in the Late Roman Empire. In Mattingly 1956: 190-204.
1957a_ Arles (Arelate) or Constantinople? NCirc 65: 13-4.
1957b Carausius II—Fact or Fiction? NC® 17: 78-83.
1959a Zeno and Leo, the Most Noble Caesars. NC® 19: 93-8.
1959b Barbarous Copies of Roman Coins: Their Significance for the British Historian and Arche-
ologist. In Limes-Studien, Schriften des Instituts fiir Ur- und Friihgeschichte der Schweiz 14:
61-8. Basel.
318 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1960 Auream monetam .. . cum signo crucis. NC® 20: 129-32.
1961 From Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England. In Studies in Anglo-Saxon Coinage Presented ta
Sir Frank Stenton: 1-22. London.
1966 Julius Nepos and the Fall of the Western Empire. In Corolla memoriae Erich Swoboda dedicata,
Romische Forschungen in Niederésterreich 5: 146—50. Graz-Cologne.
1974 Un monnayage irrégulier du début du Ve siécle de notre ére. BCEN 11: 23-9.
1978 Roman Coins. London. (Rev. edn. of J. P. C. Kent et al., Die rémische Miinzen, Munich, 1973.)
1979 The End of Roman Britain: The Literary and Numismatic Evidence Reviewed. In Casey
1979: 15-28.
1986 Presidential Address: Aspects of Late Roman Coinage. NC 146: iti—ix.
1987a Presidential Address: Notes on Late Roman Coinage. NC 147: iv—xiii.
1987b An Unusual Solidus of Constantine III (407—408). In Bastien 1987: 281—4.
1988a The Italian Bronze Coinage of Valentinian III and a Hoard of Fifth-Century Roman Coins
from El-Djem, Tunisia. In Studia Jeloénik 1988: 185-95.
1988b The Fifth Century Bronze Coinage of Honorius in Italy and Gaul. RIN 90: 281-94.
1988c Presidential Address: Roman Imperial Coinage in Decline. NC 148: iii—xiii.
1989 Presidential Address: The Relationship of Roman and Barbarian as Illustrated by the Coin-
age. NC 149: ii—xiil.
1990 Le solidus de Marcien de Rome: Une création de Sabatier. BSFN 45: 927-8.
KENT, J. P. C., AND K. S. PAINTER
1977 (Eds.) Wealth of the Roman World. London.
KERENYI, A. ;
1946 Ersekujvari lelet (A [coin] find from Ersekujvar). NK 44-5 (1945-6): 16-20.
KERKWIJK, A. O. VAN
1910 Les médaillons romains en or de la trouvaille de Velp en 1715. Mémoires du Congrés interna-
tional de numismatique, Bruxelles, 1910: 29-38. Brussels.
KiNG, C. E.
1979 The Value of Hoards and Site Finds in Relation to Monetary Circulation in the Late Third
and Early 4th Centuries A.D. In Studien zur Miinzfunde der Antike, 1, ed. M. R. Alf6ldi: 79-98.
Berlin.
1980a (Ed.) Imperial Revenue, Expenditure and Monetary Policy in the Fourth Century A.D., the Fifth Ox-
ford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, BAR International Series 176. Oxford.
1980b The Sacrae Largitiones: Revenues, Expenditure and the Production of Coin. In King 1980a:
141-73.
1981 A Hoard of Clipped Siliquae in the Preston Museum. NC 141: 40-64.
1987a Fifth Century Roman Coinage in the Western Roman Empire: The Usurpations in Spain and
Gaul. In Bastien 1987: 363-73.
1987b Roman Silver Coins, V. Carausius to Romulus Augustus. London.
1988 Fifth Century Silver Issues in Gaul. In Studia Jeloénik 1988: 197-211.
KLEIN, R.
1972 Der Streit um den Victoriaaltar, Texte zur Forschung 7. Darmstadt.
KLONER, A., AND T. MINDEL
1981 ‘Two Byzantine Hoards from the Ancient Synagogue of Horvat Rimmon. Israel Numismatic
Journal 5: 60-8.
KNAPKE, W.
1941 Aurei- und Solidi-Vorkommen an der Siidktiste der Ostsee. Acta Archaeologica 12: 79-118.
1943 Aurei- und Solidi-Vorkommen am Mare Balticum. Acta Archaeologica 14: 55-66.
KNIPPENBERG, W. H. T.
1952 Romeinse munten uit Hapert (N. Br.) MP 39: 94-6.
KNOBLOCH, F. S.
1981 Aureus or Medallion? SAN 12: 58.
KoBLITz, H. vON
1928 In der Miinzstatte Treveri gepragte Miinzen von Valentinianus sen. bis zum Aufhéren der
Pragung. Trierer Zeitschrift 3: 24-54.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 319
KOEHNE, B. VON
1846 Unedierte antike Miinzen aus St. Petersburger Sammlungen, I. Rémische und Byzantinische
Miinzen. Zeitschrift fiir Miinz-, Siegel-, und Wappenkunde 6: 193-206.
KOLNikovA, E.
1968 NaAalez neskororimskych solidov v Bini, okres Nové Zamky. Numismaticky Sbornik 10: 5-50.
KORNEMANN, E.
1930 Doppelprinzipat und Reichstetlung im Impertum Romanum. Leipzig-Berlin.
Kos, P.
1986 Monetary Circulation in the Southeastern Alpine Region, c. 300 B.C.—A.D. 1000, Situla: Disserta-
tiones Musei Nationalis Labacensis 24. Ljubljana.
KROPOTKIN, V. V.
1962 Klady Vizantiiskikh monet na territortt SSSR. Moscow.
Kruse, H.
1934 Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes im roémischen Reiche. Paderborn.
KRZYZANOWSKA, A.
1986 Contribution au probléme de la circulation monétaire en Egypte a l’époque du Bas Empire.
Polish Numismatic News 4 (suppl. to WN 29): 45-54.
KUBITSCHEK, W.
1910 Zum Goldfund von Dortmund. NZ 43: 54-61.
1913 Gold und Silber in IV. Jahrhundert n. Chr. NZ 46: 161-70.
KuNISZz, A.
1973 Katalog skarbéw monet rzymskich odkrytych na ziemiach polskich. Warsaw.
KYHLBERG, O.
1986 Late Roman and Byzantine Solidi: An Archaeological Analysis of Coins and Hoards. In Ex-
cavations at Helgo, X. Coins, Iron and Gold: 13-126. Stockholm.
La BauMgE, P.
1963 Ein Goldschmuck aus Liibchow in Pommern. In Studien zur Geschichte des Preussenlandes:
Festschrift fiir Erich Keyser zu seonem 70. Geburtstag, ed. E. Bahr: 21—4. Marburg.
LacaM, G.
1974 Civilisation et monnaies byzantines. Paris.
1983 La fin de l’empire romain et le monnayage or en Italie, 455-493, 2 vols. Lucerne.
1987 Ricimer, Léon I*, Majorien, le monnayage de Ricimer 465-472. Paris. (Privately printed.)
1988 Le monnayage de Ricimer. In Studia Jeloénik 1988: 219-46.
1989 A propos de la mutation de l’indicatif R — V en R — A sur les solidi visigoths du royaume de
Toulouse. RIN 91: 181-94.
LAFAURIE
1980 Mélanges de numismatique, d’archéologie et d’histoire offerts a Jean Lafaurie, ed. P. Bastien, F. Dumas,
H. Huvelin, and C. Morrisson. Paris.
LAFAURIE, J.
1953 La chronologie des monnaies de Constantin III et de Constant II. RN® 15:37—65.
1958 Le trésor de Chécy (Loiret). In Trésors monétaires et plaque-boucles de la Gaule romaine: Bavai,
Montbouy, Chécy, by J. Gricourt, G. Fabre, M. Mainjonet, and J. Lafaurie: 273-345. Paris. (12th
suppl. to Gallia.)
1959 Solidus de Constantin II] du Musée de Fribourg. RSN 40:22-6.
1963 Follis inédit de l’atelier de Londres, frappé par Constantin.—Solidus d’Honorius, frappé en
Illyricum. BSFN 18:241-3.
1964a Monnaie en argent trouvée a Fleury-sur-Orne: Essai sur le monnayage d’argent franc des Ve
et Vie siécles. Annales de Normandie 14:173-222.
1964b Les monnaies de la tombe 127 du cimetiére d’Arcy-Sainte-Restitue (Aisne). BSFN 19:320—2.
1964c A propos des monnaies de la tombe de Béckingen (Baden). BSFN 19:327-9.
1965 Un sou d’or d’Honorius frappé a Arles. BSFN 20:434-6.
1969 Solidus d’Arcadius frappé a l’atelier d’Arles. BSFN 24:392-3.
1972 Familia monetalis. BSFN 27:267-71.
1973a Cruces in vestibus. BSFN 28:336—40.
320 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1973b Numismatique romaine et médiévale (rapports des conférences). Annuaire de l’Ecole Pratique
des Hautes Etudes (IVe Section) 1972-3: 326-9.
1980 Deux trouvailles de monnaies du Ve siécle a Chatelaillon, prés La Rochelle. BSFN 35:715-6.
1982 A propos de deux monnaies d’or de Sévére III trouvées en Anjou. BSFN 37:194-6.
1984 ‘Trésor de monnaies d’or du Ve siécle trouvé en 1803 4 Combertault (Céte-d’Or). RN® 26:145—
60.
1987 Les derniéres émissions impériales d’argent a Tréves au 5e siécle. In Bastien 1987: 297-323.
1988 Monnaies trouvées dans la tombe 22 de la nécropole de Mailly-le-Camp (Aube). BSFN
43:379-84.
1989 Trouvailles de monnaies des Ve—VIIIle s. a Eyguiéres (Bouches-du-Rhéne). BSFN 45: 772-5.
LAFAURIE, J., AND V. LAFONT
1979 Argenteus de l’usurpateur Maxime trouvé prés d’Argelers-sur-Mer. BSFN 34:538, 540-4.
(Repr. in GN 55, 1979: 12-16.)
LAFFRANCHI, L.
1919 Ripostiglio a Porta Collina (Roma). RIN 32:42-7.
1929 “Constantina” e “Constantia”: Nuove denominazioni di Arelate nei secoli IV e V. Historia
2:277.
1930 Le zecche dell’Italia superiore al tempo di Roma imperiale. Rassegna numismatica 27:87-91.
1931 Nuovo aureo di Licinia Eudossia e il corpus numismatico di questa Augusta. Rassegna numis-
matica 28:251-6.
1933 Le monete milanesi del tempo santambrosiano. Milano (agosto 1933): 3-8.
1941 Appunti di critica numismatica, I. La data finale della personificazione di Constantinopoli ed.
i medaglioni aurei del tempo Teodosiano. Numismatica 7:33-9.
1942 Appunti di critica numismatica, II. Il medaglione aureo di Teodosio II. Numismatica 8:41-3.
1953 La monetae la monetazione della romana Mediolanum. In Storia di Milano, 1:697-—719. Milan.
LaGoy, MARQUIS DE
1845 Mélanges de numismatique: Médailles inédites, grecques, gauloises, romaines, et du moyen age. Aix.
1856 Recherches sur l’explication des monogrammes de quelques médailles inédites des derniers temps de l’em-
pire d’Occident et de l'époque mérovingienne. Aix.
LALLEMAND, J.
1960 Le trésor de Helchteren: Petits bronzes de Gratien 4a Honorius. RBN 106:47-69.
1964a Une petite piéce d’argent frappée a Tréves. BCEN 1:39—40.
1964b Sou d’or de Zénon frappé a Thessalonique. BCEN 1:49-51.
1965a_ Lierre: Bronzes de Constantin I a Arcadius-Honorius. Etudes numismatiques 3:49-87. Brussels.
(See also Lallemand 1968a.)
1965b Koninksem: Bronzes de Claude II a Arcadius-Honorius. Etudes numismatiques 3:89-107. Brus-
sels.
1965c Vedrin: Sous d’or de Magnus Maximus a Anastase. Etudes numismatiques 3:109—44. Brussels.
1967a Trésor de monnaies romaines en bronze: Constance II 4 Zénon. In Ordona, 11:19—30. Brus-
sels.
1967b Le trésor de Hemptinne: Bronzes (aes 2) de Gratien 4 Magnus Maximus. Annales de la Société
archéologique de Namur 54:5-59.
1968a_ Le trésor de Lierre: Bronzes jusqu’a Arcadius-Honorius. Supplément. Helinium 8:22-41.
1968b_ Le répertoire des monnaies antiques découvertes en Belgique. BCEN 5:6-10.
1973 Trésor de petits bronzes romains découvert en Egypte: Constance I]—Constant a Arcadius—
Honorius. Chronique d’Egypte 48:157-78.
1983 Belgian Finds of Late Fourth-Century Roman Bronze. In Studies in Numismatic Method Pre-
sented to Philip Grierson: 75-94. Cambridge.
LAURENT, V.
1958 Un sceau inédit de l’impératrice Aelia Eudoxia, femme de Valentinien III. Cahiers de Byrsa 8
(1958-59): 119-30.
LAVAGNE, F.
1972 Le pesage monétaire: Les poids byzantins. Archéonumis 3:19-—27.
LEDERER, P.
1934 La zecca di “Ticinum” Pavia sotto Odoacre. Atti e Memorie dell’Istituto italiano di Numismatica
8:145-51.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 321
Le GENTILHOMME, P.
1943-4 Le monnayage et la circulation monétaire dans les royaumes barbares en Occident (Ve—VIIle
siécle). RN® 7 (1943): 46-112; 8 (1944): 13-59.
LEHMANN, P. W.
1959 Theodosius or Justinian? A Renaissance Drawing of a Byzantine Rider. Art Bulletin 41:39-57,
with criticism by C. Mango and her reply on pp. 351-7.
LENORMANT, F.
1867 Sur le poids des médaillons d’or romains. RN? 12:127-34.
1897 La monnaie dans l’Antiquité, 3 vols. Paris.
LE Roy, M.
1971 Le poids de la livre romaine. BSFN 26:98-100.
LEUTHOLD, E.
1960 Solidi leggieri da XXIII silique degli imperatori Maurizio Tiberio, Foca ed Eraclio. RIN
62:146—-54.
Levi, A. CALO
1952 Barbarians on Roman Imperial Coins and Sculpture, NNM 123 (New York, 1952).
Lewis, N.
1937 The Hoard of Folles from Seltz (Alsace), NNM 79 (New York, 1937) (includes a supplement [pp.
76-81] by D. Lewis on their chemical composition.)
LIEBESCHUETZ, J. H. W. G.
1972 Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Late Roman Empire. Oxford.
LITTLEWOOD, A. R. ;
1974 The Symbolism of the Apple in Byzantine Literature. Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantin-
ischen Gesellschaft 23:33-59.
LoncueET, H.
1957 Die unedierten byzantinischen Miinzen des Wiener Kabinetts. NZ 77:28—57.
Lorior, X.
1972 Fragment d’un trésor de folles découvert en Tunisie. BSFN 27:160-3.
1988a Solidus d’Honorius trouvé dans la Dréme. BSFN 43:354—-5.
1988b Trouvailles isolées de monnaies d’or romaines dans la province de Rétie (Ier—Ve siécles). In
Studia Jeloénik 1988:53—98.
1988c Deux monnaies d’or romaines trouvées en Couserans. BSFN 43:417-9.
LorioT, X., AND J. P. NOLDIN
1990 Deux tremisses de Libius Sévére récemment découverts en Aquitaine. BSFN 45: 897-900.
LupwIcH, A.
1882 Eudokia, die Gattin des Kaisers Theodosios II, als Dichterin. Rheinisches Museum fiir Philologie
37:206-—65.
1897 (Ed.) Eudociae Augustae, Procli, Lycii, Claudiani carminum Graecorum reliquae. Teubner, Leipzig.
Lypus, JOHN
1903 De magistratibus populi Romani, ed. R. Wuensch. Teubner, Leipzig.
MacCorMack, S.
1981 Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London.
MACDONALD, G.
1899-1905 Catalogue of Greek Coins in the Hunterian Collection, 3 vols. Glasgow.
Maclsaac, J. D.
1972 The Weight of the Late 4th and Early 5th Century Nummus (AE 4). MN 18:59-66.
1975 “The Hand of God”: A Numismatic Study. Traditio 31:322-8.
MADDEN, F. W.
186la The Three Valentinians. NC? 1:112—27.
1861b On Some Coins of Theodosius I and II, with Some Remarks on the Mint-marks “COMOB”
and “CONOB,” and on the Coins of Placidia, the Wife of Constantius (Patricius). NC? 1:175—
84.
322
186l1c
1862
1865
1867-8
1877-8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
On the Imperial Consular ‘Dress’. NC? 1:231—40.
Remarks in Reply to M. Cohen’s Observations on the Explanation of the Letters CONOB,
OB, TROB, etc., etc. NC? 2:240—58.
Note on Some Gold Coins Bearing the Name of Theodosius. NC? 5:161—4.
An Account of the Collection of Roman Gold Coins of the Late Duke de Blacas, Purchased,
with Other Antiquities, for the British Museum. NC? 7 (1867): 251-320; 8 (1868): 1-56.
Christian Emblems on the Coins of Constantine I, the Great, His Family, and His Successors.
NC? 17 (1877): 11-56, 242-307; 18 (1878): 1-48, 169-215.
MANGANARO, G.
1959
Il “contorniato” erculeo di Anthemio, AJJN 5—6 (1958-9): 73-7.
MANOoDoRI, A.
1985
Continuita e mutamento nell’iconografia dellimperatore dal paganesimo al cristianesimo.
BdN 4:15-41.
MARCELLINUS COMES
1894
MARCHANT
1851
Maric, R.
1959
MarRINI, G.
1805
Chronica, ed. T. Mommsen in Chronica Minora, Mon. Germ. Hist., Auctores Antiquissimi XI,
Chronica Minora, II: 60—104. Berlin.
Lettres du Baron Marchant sur la numismatique et l'histoire. Paris.
Iz numizmatichke zbirke Narodnog Muzeja. Zbornik Radova Narodnog Muzeja 2 (1958-9):
191-224.
I papiri diplomatici, raccolti ed illustratt. Rome.
Marrow, H. I.
1941
“Palma et laurus.” Mélanges d’archéologie et d'histoire de Ecole francaise de Rome 58 (1941-46):
109-31.
MartTIn, P. H.
1982
MASLEYV, S.
1966
Neue Miinzanhanger und Schmuckscheiben aus einem Grab des 5. Jahrhunderts in Baden.
Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Numismatics, Berne, Sept. 1979, 11:715-30.
Louvain-la-Neuve and Luxembourg.
Die staatsrechtliche Stellung der byzantinischen Kaiserinnen. Byzantinoslavica 27:308—43.
MATTHEWS, J.
1975
MATTINGLY
1956
MATTINGLY, H
1922
1925
1927
193]
1946a
1946b
1947
1950-1
1960
Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court A.D. 364—425. Oxford.
Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly, ed. R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Suth-
erland. Oxford.
Find of Siliquae at Dorchester, Dorset. NC® 2:134-9.
Some Roman Hoards: Honiton. NC® 5:396-7.
Roman Coins from the Earliest Times to the Fall of the Western Empire. London. See also Mattingly
1960.
A Late Roman Hoard from Corinth. NC*® 11:229-33. (Subsequently sold as lot 993 in the
L. A. Lawrence sale, Roman II at Glendining’s, 17.i.1951; bought by Charles Hirsh and resold
by him to the dealer Paul Tinchant, who dispersed it.)
The Monetary Systems of the Roman Empire from Diocletian to Theodosius I. NC® 6:111—
20.
The Bermondsey Hoard. NC® 6:167-9.
Bermondsey Hoard. NC® 7:91.
The Imperial “Vota.” Proceedings of the British Academy 36 (1950): 155-95; 37 (1951): 219-68.
Roman Coins from the Earliest Times to the Fall of the Western Empire, 2nd ed. London.
MATTINGLY, H., AND J. W. E. PEARCE
1946
The Tuddenham Hoard of Siliquae. NC® 6:169-73.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 323
MaTTINGLY, H., J. W. E. PEARCE, AND T. D. KENDRICK
1937 The Coleraine Hoard. Antiquity 11:39-—45.
MAULL, I.
1961 Le Zecche nell’antica Ravenna (402/404—751 d. C.). Felix Ravenna 84:79-134.
MAYREDER, F.
1936 Die halben Centenionales mit Vota-Legenden zur Zeit des Theodosius. NZ 69 (1936), 52-60.
(See Pearce’s reservations in NC* 17, 1937: 149-51.)
MAZzaRINO, S.
1942 Stilicone: La crisi imperiale dopo Teodosio, Studi pubblicati dal R. Istituto italiano per la storia
antica 3. Rome.
1966 The End of the Ancient World, trans. G. Holmes. London.
MazzZInI, G.
1957-8 Monete imperiali romane, 5 vols. Milan.
MAZZOLANI, L. STORONI
1975 Galla Placidia. Milan.
MEIER, H. R.
1986 Miinzhorte des 5. und 6. Jahrhunderts. RSN 65:133-51.
MetTcaLr, D. M.
1984 The Mint of Thessalonica in the Early Byzantine Period. In Villes et peuplement dans I'Illyricum
protobyzantin, Collection de l’Ecole francaise de Rome 77:113—29. Rome.
1988 The Minting of Gold Coinage at Thessalonica in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries and the Gold
Currency of Illyricum and Dalmatia. In Hahn and Metcalf 1988:65-109.
MetTca Lr, W. E.
198la A Nummus of Honoria and a Decanummium of Constans II from the Excavations of Car-
thage. NC 141:154—-6.
1981b The Coins from the Cisterns 1977.1, 1977.2 and 1977.3. In Excavations at Carthage Conducted
by the University of Michigan, V1:79-84. Ann Arbor.
1982 The Coins—1978. In Excavations at Carthage 1978 Conducted by the University of Michigan, 7
VII:63-—168. Ann Arbor.
1987 The Michigan Finds at Carthage, 1975-79: An Analysis. MN 32:61-84.
MetTcaLr, W. E., AND R. BRUCE HITCHNER
1981 The Coins—1977. In Excavations at Carthage 1977 Conducted by the University of Michigan,
V:185-—262. New Delhi.
MEYERS, P.
1969 Non-Destructive Activation Analysis of Ancient Coins Using Charged Particles and Fast Neu-
trons. Archaeometry 11:67-83.
MEYNAERTS, J. P.
1845 Sept demi-sous en or inédits. RBN 1:355—6.
MGH, AUCT. ANTIQ.
1877-1919 Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctores antiquissimi, 15 vols. Berlin.
MGH, ScRIPT. RER. LANG.
1878 Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores rerum langobardicarum . . . Hannover.
MIckwITz, G.
1932 Geld und Wirtschaft im rémischen Reich des vierten Jahrhunderts n. Chr., Societas Scientiarum Fen-
nica, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 4.2. Helsinki.
1933 Die Systeme des rémischen Silbergeldes im IV. Jhdt. n. Chr., Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Commen-
tationes Humanarum Litterarum 6.2. Helsinki.
1934 Le probléme de lor dans le monde antique. Annales d'histoire économique et sociale 6:235-—47.
MIKOLAjczyK, A.
1977 Migration Period Hoard of Ornaments and Roman and Early Byzantine Coins Found at Kon-
arzew, Poland. Coin Hoards 3:178—9. Royal Numismatic Society, London.
324 BIBLIOGRAPHY
MILNE, J. G.
1920 Two Roman Hoards of Coins from Egypt. JRS 10:169-84.
1925 J. T. Wood’s Coins from Ephesos. NC® 5:385—91.
1926 The Currency of Egypt in the Fifth Century. NC* 6:43—92.
1947 Report on the Coins Found at Antinoe in 1914. NC® 7:108—14.
1952 Roman Coinage in Egypt in Relation to the Native Economy. Aegyptus 32:143-51.
MIonnetT, T. E.
1827 De la rareté et du prix des médailles romaines, 2nd ed., 2 vols. Paris.
MIssoNnG, A.
1880 Die Vorlaiifer der Wertzahl OB auf rémischen Goldmiinzen. ZfN 7:240—95.
MirTarD, P. H.
1969 Monnaies d’argent au nom de Valentinien III découvertes a Genainville (Val d’Oise). BSFN
24:356-7.
1973 Découverte d’un solidus de Constantin III a Plassac (Gironde). BSFN 28:467-8.
1978 Monnaies des Ve/VIe et VII siécles découvertes 4 Genainville (Val d’Oise), RN® 20:117-30.
Mocsy, A.
1964 Der Name Flavius als Rangbezeichnung in der Spatantike. Akte des IV. Internationalen Kon-
gresses fiir griechische und lateinische Epigraphik (Wien, Sept. 1962): 257-63. Graz-Vienna-
Cologne.
MomMSEN, T.
1860 Geschichte des rémischen Miinzwesens. Berlin.
1865-75 Histoire de la monnaie romaine, trans. the duc de Blacas and A. de Witte, 4 vols. Paris.
1888 Goldbarren aus Sirmium. ZfN 16:351-8.
MONNERET DE VILLARD, U.
1922 Exagia bizantini in vetro. RIN 35:93-106.
MONTANARI, G. BERMOND
1964 ‘Tesoretto di Parma. AJJN 9-11 (1962-4): 246-52.
Morrisson, C.
1970 Catalogue des monnaies byzantines de la Bibliotheque Nationale (491—1204), 2 vols. Paris.
1974 Numismatique byzantine. Annuaire de l’Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. IVe Section: sciences his-
toriques et philologiques 1974/75: 455-62.
1976 Les origines du monnayage vandale. In Actes du 8e congrés international de numismatique, New
York-Washington 1973: 461-72. Paris-Basel.
1980 La trouvaille d’Ain Kelba et la circulation des minimi en Afrique au début du Vile siécle. In
Lafaurie 1980: 239-48.
1983 The Re-Use of Obsolete Coins: The Case of Roman Imperial Bronzes Revived in the Late
Fifth Century. In Studies in Numismatic Method Presented to Philip Grierson: 95-111. Cambridge.
1987 La circulation de la monnaie d’or en Afrique a l’époque vandale. Bilan des trouvailles locales.
In Bastien 1987: 325-44.
1988 Coin Finds in Vandal and Byzantine Carthage: A Provisional Assessment. In The Circus and a
Byzantine Cemetery at Carthage, ed. J. H. Humphrey, 1:423-—36. Ann Arbor.
1989 Le role du monnayage d'argent dans la circulation africaine a l’€poque vandale et byzantine.
BSFN 44:518-22.
Morrisson, C., C. BRENOT, J. N. BARRANDON, J. P. CALLU, J. PoIRIER, AND R. HALLEUX
1985 L’or monnayé, 1. Purification et altérations de Rome a Byzance, Cahiers Ernest-Babelon 1. Paris.
Morrisson, C., J. N. BARRANDON, AND C. BRENOT
1987 Composition and Technology of Ancient and Medieval Coinages: A Reassessment of Analyt-
ical Results. MN 32:181—209.
Morrisson, C., AND J. H. SCHWARTZ
1982 Vandal Silver Coinage in the Name of Honorius. MN 27:149-79.
MosTEcky, H.
1985 Ein Minzhort von Karthago aus der Zeit vor dem Vandalensturm. MONG 25:69-73.
1987a Notizen zum Vandalischen und italisch-barbarischen Nummus. MONG 27:46-51.
1987b Miinzen zwischen Rom und Byzanz: Beitrage zur spatantiken Numismatik. MONG 27:64—-7.
1989 Ein neuer(?) Minimus des Theodosius I. aus Antiochia. MONG 29:50-2.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 325
Mowat, R.
1909 Le bureau de I’Equité et les ateliers de la Monnaie impériale 4 Rome d’aprés les monuments
numismatiques et épigraphiques. NZ 42:87-116.
MROZEK, S.
1984 Le pouvoir d’achat du follis au [Ve siécle en Italie. In La Zecca di Milano. Atti del Convegno
internazionale di Studio, Milano 9-14 maggio 1983: 217-27. Milan.
MULLER, J. W.
1975 Détermination du poids des monnaies. BSFN 30:74 1-2.
MUNKSGAARD, E.
1955 Late Antique Scrap Silver Found in Denmark: The Hardenberg, Hgstentorp and Sum-
mersted Hoards. Acta Archaeologica 26:31—67.
Nau, E.
1966 Der Riibenacher Argenteus, die Miinzanhanger aus dem Frauengrab Heilbronn-Béckingen,
und die Silbermiinzen des Dortmunder Schatzes. SM 16:23-33.
NAVILLE, L.
1920 Fragments de métrologie antique. RSN 22:42—60, 257-63.
1922 La livre romaine et le denier de la loi salique: Réponse a M. Dieudonné. RSN 22:258-63.
1951 Les monnaies d’or de la Cyrénaique. Geneva.
NEDELTCHEY, K.
1971 A New Hoard of Byzantine Gold Coins in Bulgaria. NCirc 79:287.
NESSELHAUF, H.
1938 Die spdtrémische Verwaltung der gallisch-germanischen Lander, Abhandlungen d. Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-Hist. Klasse 2. Berlin.
NEWELL, E. T.
1933 Two Hoards from Minturno, NNM 60. New York.
NOHEJLOVA-PRATOVA, E.
1955-8 (Ed.) Ndlezy minci v Cechdéch, na Moravé a ve Slezsku, 4 vols. Prague.
Nurx Espinosa, J. M.
1976 Un bronce inédito de Maximo Tirano acunado en Barcelona, hallado en Tarrasa (Barcelona).
Numisma 26:165—-9.
OpaHL, C. M.
1975 An Eschatological Interpretation of Constantine’s Labarum Coin. SAN 6:47—51.
Oppy, W. A., AND V. E. G. MEYER
1986 The Analysis of the Gold Finds from Helgé and Their Relationship to Other Early Medieval
Gold. In Excavations at Helgé, X. Coins, Iron and Gold: 153-78. Stockholm.
ONDROUCH, V.
1964 Nédlezy keltskych, antickych a byzantskjch minci na Slovensku. Bratislava.
O’NEIL, B. H. St. J.
1930 A Late Roman Hoard from Northamptonshire. NC* 10:275—81 (with corrigenda in “The
Nobottle Theodosian hoard,” NC* 11 (1931); 321-2, but both superseded by O’Neil 1933a).
1933a A Hoard of Late Roman Coins from Northamptonshire: Its Parallels and Significance. Ar-
chaeological Journal 90:282—305.
1933b The Terling Treasure. NC® 13:145-70.
1933c The Wroxall Theodosian Hoard. NC® 13:220-2.
1934 The Sproxton Theodosian Hoard. NC* 14:62-73.
1935 The South Ferriby Theodosian Hoard. NC® 15:254-74.
1936 The Cleeve Prior Hoard of 1811. NC® 16:314-6.
1940 Some Overstrikes and Other Roman Coins from Maiden Castle, Dorset. NC® 20:179-—84.
1948 Some Minimissimi Found at Canterbury and Their Significance. NC® 8:226-9.
1952 Cirencester Park, Theodosian Hoard. NC® 12:128-—9.
Oost, S. I.
1965 Some Problems in the History of Galla Placidia. Classical Philology 60:1-10.
1968 Galla Placidia Augusta. Chicago.
326 BIBLIOGRAPHY
O’RiorDAIN,
1947 Roman Material in Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 51, Section C: 35-82.
OrsI, P.
1909 Siracusa: Ripostiglio di monetine del Basso Impero. Notizie degli Scavi 6:61.
1910 Ripostiglio monetale del basso impero e dei primi tempi bizantini rinvenuto a Lipari. RIN
23:353-9.
OstrRocorsky, G.
1957 History of the Byzantine State, trans. Joan Hussey. New Brunswick.
PAINTER, K. S.
1965 A Roman Silver Treasure from Canterbury. Journal of the British Archaeological Association*®
28:1-15.
1972 A Late Roman Silver Ingot from Kent. Antiquaries Journal 52:84—92.
PALANQUE, J. R.
1934 La date du transfert de la Préfecture des Gaules de Tréves a Arles. Revue des études anciennes
36:359-65.
1944 Collégialité et partages dans |’Empire romain aux [Ve et Ve siécles. Revue des études anciennes
46:47—44, 280-98.
1965 Lempereur Maxime. In Les empereurs romains d’Espagne, Colloques internationaux du CNRS,
Sciences humaines, Madrid-Italica, 31 mars—6 avril 1964: 255-67. Paris.
PALOL, P. DE
1949 Ponderales y exagia romanobizantinos en Espana. Ampurias 11:127—50.
PANVINI RosarTI, F.
1953 Ripostiglio di aurei tardo-imperiali a Comiso. Accademia degli Lincei: Rendiconti morali, Serie
VIII, 8:422—40.
1958 Libra. In E. de Ruggiero, Dizionario epigrafico, 1V (1946-85): 951-5.
1963 La produzione della zecca di Ravenna fino alla conquista bizantina della citta. CARB 10:277-
as
1965 Il rotolo come attributo dell’imperatore sulle monete romane. In Atti del VI Congresso interna-
zionale di Archeologia cristiana, Ravenna, 1962 (= Studi di Antichita cristiana 26): 557—66. Vat-
ican City.
1978a La zecca di Aquileia. Antichita Altoadriatiche 13:289—98.
1978b_ La zecca di Ravenna. Antichita Altoadriatiche 13:299-310.
1978c Tre zecche imperiali: Treviri, Mediolanum, Ravenna. CARB 25:211-28.
1978d_ La tipologia monetale della zecca di Treviri nel quadro della tipologia imperiale romana.
CARB 25:229-32.
1985 Osservazioni sulla circolazione in Italia nel V secolo d.C. di monete d’oro romane. BdN 4:7—
14.
1988 La circolazione monetaria ad Aquileia nell’alto medioevo. In Aquileia e le Venezie nell’alto me-
dioevo (= Antichita Altoadriatiche 32): 407-11. Udine.
PASCHOUD, F.
1976 Un probléme de circulation monétaire au IVe siécle aprés J.-C. In Mélanges d'histoire ancienne
et d'archéologie offerts a Paul Collart (= Cahiers d’archéologie romande 5):307—16. Lausanne.
PATRONI, G.
1911 Tesoretto di monete e di oggetti d’oro dell’eta di Onorio, scoperto presso la stazione ferrovi-
aria della Certosa di Pavia. Notizie degli Scavi 8:4-5.
PEACHIN, M.
1986 The Procurator Monetae. NC 146:94-106.
PEARCE, B. W.
1940a The Coins from Richborough—A Survey. NC® 20:57-75.
PEARCE, J. W. E.
1929a Roman Coins from Icklingham. NC° 9:319-27. (The hoard generally known as “Icklingham
II”; for “Icklingham I,” see Hill 1908.)
1929b Roman Coins from Cirencester, NC*® 9:332—4.
193la A Late Hoard of AE 3 and AE 4 from Egypt. NC® 11:318-9.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 327
1931b An Eastern Hoard of Late AE. NC® 11:319-21. (AE 3 and 4 from Caiffa, ca. 400.)
1933a Notes on the Terling and Other Silver Hoards Found in Britain. NC® 13:170-81.
1933b The Roman Coinage from a.p. 364 to 423. London. (Repr. from NCirc, 1931-3.)
1934a Notes on Some aes of Valentinian II and Theodosius. NC* 14:114-30.
1934b A Late Roman Hoard from Dalmatia. NC® 14:269-83.
1935a A Late Roman Hoard from South-west Asia Minor. NC* 15:21-4.
1935b Late Fourth-century Hoard of “Aes 4” from Woodbridge. NC* 15:49-53.
1935c Further Notes on Some aes of Valentinian II and Theodosius. NC® 15:72.
1935d_ Siliqua Issues at Treveri from the Death of Valens to the Accession of Magnus Maximus, NC®
15:137-64.
1936a A New Hoard of Siliquae from Icklingham. NC* 16:257—61. (The hoard generally termed
“Icklingham III.”)
1936b Roman Site-Finds from Cirencester. NC*® 16:261-3.
1937a Eugenius and His Eastern Colleagues. NC° 17:1—27.
1937b The Vota Legends on the Roman Coinage. NC* 17:112—23.
1938a The Reign of Theodosius I: History and Coinage. Transactions of the International Numismatic
Congress, London, 1936, ed. J. Allan, H. Mattingly, and E. S. G. Robinson: 229-39. London.
1938b A Second Find of Siliquae from Shapwick. NC® 18:53-8.
1938c Gold Coinage of the Reign of Theodosius I. NC* 18:205—46 (with addendum in NC° 19, 1939:
167-8).
1938d_ Icklingham II Redivivus. NC* 18:59-61.
1938e More Late aes from Egypt. NC* 18:117—26.
1939a Shapwick III: A Large Hoard of Valentinianian Aes. NC° 19:138-42.
1939b Concordia Solidi Struck by Theodosius I at Constantinople. NC*® 19:199—215.
1940b_ Issues of the Solidi Victoria Augg from Treviri. NC*® 20:138-61.
1940c A Hoard of Late Roman Bronze Coins from Stretham. Cambridge Antiquarian Society Proceed-
ings 39:85—92.
1942 Siliquae from a Find at Mildenhall, Suffolk. NC® 2:105—6.
1943 A Half-Siliqua of the Treveran Mint. NC® 3:97-9.
1944 Lugdunum: Siliqua-Coinage of Valentinian II and Eugenius. NC® 4:44—-57.
PEARCE, J. W. E., AND C. OMAN
1942 A Find of Siliquae from Colerne, Wiltshire. NC® 2:97—104.
Pearce, J. W. E., AND M. E. Woop
1934 A Late Roman Hoard from Dalmatia. NC*® 14:269-—83.
PELLICER I BRU, J.
1986 Mas consideraciones teoricas a las equivalencias del solidus aureus (Una segunda libra como
patron de las acunaciones, 325 hasta 491). GN 82:47-55.
PERANTONI SATTA, G.
1956 Rinvenimenti in Sardegna di monete dell’ Impero d’Oriente. AIJN 3:151—66.
PERONI, A.
1967 Orificerie e metalli lavorati tardo-antichi e altomedievali del territorio di Pavia. Spoleto.
PeTrigE, W. M. FLINDERS
1889 Hawara, Biahmu and Arsinoe. London.
PFISTER, J. G.
1855 Ona Unique and Unedited Silver Coin (Denarius) of Odoacer, King of Italy, A.D. 476-493,
Struck at Ravenna. NC 17 (1854—5): 223-37.
PriauM, H. G.
1972 Un procurateur de la Monnaie de Thessalonique. BSFN 27:315-6.
Pick, B.
1927 Ein neues Portrat des Kaisers Justinian: Die Vota auf den ostrémischen Miinzen. NZ 60:
21-6.
PIGANIOL, A.
1945 Le probléme de I’or au IVe siécle. Annales d’histoire sociale 7:47—53. (Repr. in his Scripta Varia,
III [= Latomus 133, 1973]: 306-15.)
328 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1972 L’Empire chrétien (325-395), 2nd ed. Paris.
PILTZ, E.
1974 Couronnes byzantines réfléchies dans les sources littéraires—tentative de typologie. Byzantina
3—4 (1974-5): 3-24.
PINDER, M.
1843 Die Beckerschen falschen Miinzen. Berlin.
PINK, K.
1938 Rémische und byzantinische Gewichte in ésterreichischen Sammlungen. Sonderschriften des
Osterreichischen Instituts in Wien 12:5-112.
PLRE
1971— Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, ed. A. H. M. Jones et al. Cambridge.
POCHITONOV, E.
1980 Neznama medena mince cisare Lea II. a Zena z roku 474. Moravské Numismatické Zpravy
15:20-24.
POENARU Borpea, G.
1971 Monede recent descoperite la Histria si unele probleme de circulajie monetara in Dobrogea
antica (Recent coin finds at Histria and problems of monetary circulation in the ancient Dob-
rudja). Pontica 4:319-35.
POENARU Borpea, G., AND V. BARBU
1970 Contributions a l’histoire du Bas-Empire romain 4a la lumiére des deux trésors monétaires des
IVe—Ve siécles, découverts a Celeiu. Dacia? 14:251—95.
POENARU BorpeEa, G. R. OCHESEANU, AND E. NICOLAE
1988 Le trésor de monnaies du Bas-Empire romain découvert 4 Ulmetum en 1912. RIN 90:295-
328.
POHLSANDER, H. A.
1969 Victory: The Story of a Statue. Historia 18:588-—97.
PorTER, J. SCOTT, AND J. CARRUTHERS
1855 On Roman Coins Found near Coleraine. NC 17 (1854-5): 101-15.
POYDENOT, H.
1865 Médaille d’argent d’Euphémia, femme d’Anthémius. RN? 10:231—4.
Pripik, E.
1930 Neuerwerbungen rémischer Muinzen im Miinzkabinett der Ermitage. Z/N 40:69-86.
Rasponl, A. TESTI
1924 Liber Pontificalis Ecclesiae Ravennatis, 1. Bologna.
RaATTO, R.
1930 Monnaies byzantines (sale catalogue, Lugano, 19 December 1930; repr. Amsterdam, 1959).
RaucH, A. VON
1857 Uber die rémischen Silbermtinzen und den innern Werth derselben. Mitt. d. Num. Gesellschaft
in Berlin 3:282—308.
RAVETZ, A.
1963 Neutron Activation Analysis of Silver of Some Late Roman Copper Coins. Archaeometry 6:46—
So,
1964 The Fourth-Century Inflation and Romano-British Coin Finds. NC? 4:201-31.
REECE, R.
1963 Some Analyses of Late Roman Silver Coins. NC’ 3:241-2.
1967 Roman Coinage in Southern France. NC’ 91-105.
1971 Roman Coinage in Northern Italy. NC? 11:167-79.
1972a Roman Coins in Northern France and the Rhine Valley. NC’ 12:159-—65.
1972b A Short Survey of the Roman Coins Found on Fourteen Sites in Britain. Britannia 3:269-76.
1973 Roman Coinage in the Western Empire. Britannia 4:227-51.
1974 Numerical Aspects of Roman Coin Hoards in Britain. In Casey and Reece 1974:78—94.
1988 Theory and Practice in Roman Coinage. In Studia Jeloénik 1988:271-8.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 329
REECE, R., ET AL.
1968 The Coins. In B. W. Cunliffe, ed., Fifth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richbor-
ough, Kent (= Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London,
no. 23: 184-223). Oxford.
REGLING, K.
1908 Der Dortmunder Fund rémischer Goldmiinzen (with Nachtrag). Dortmund.
REINHART, W.
1938 Die Miinzen des tolosanischen Reiches der Westgoten. Deutsches Jahrbuch fiir Numismatik
1:107-35.
REUSCH, W.
1962 Die spatantike Kaiserresidenz Trier im Lichte neuer Ausgrabungen. Archdologischer Anzeiger
4:875-—903.
RIC
1923— The Roman Imperial Coinage, ed. H. Mattingly and E. A. Sydenham, 10 vols. London. (Com-
plete except for vol. X. The early coins in this volume are included in vol. IX, Valentinian I-
Theodosius I, by J. W. E. Pearce [1951].)
RICHARD, J. C. M., R. AyME, H. Dubay, AND J. GUILAINE
1972 Deux solidi du début du Ve siécle aprés J.-C. découverts 4 Moux (Aude). BSFN 27:209-11.
RoBERT, C.
1859 Lettre a M. A. de Longpérier sur quelques médailles inédites trouvées en Crimée. RN? 4:40—
i
1866 ‘Trouvaille de monnaies d’or du Bas-Empire. RN? 11:111-9.
ROBERTSON, A. S.
1936a A Hoard of Theodosian Coins from Laxton, Northants. NC® 16:156-—63.
1936b_ A Find from Shapwick, Somerset. NC® 16:245—50.
1948 Three Hoards of Roman Coins in the Harris Museum, Preston, Lancashire. NC® 8:205-18.
1952 The Poundbury Hoard of Roman Fourth-Century Copies and Their Prototypes. NC® 12:87—
95.
1954 A Roman Coin Hoard from Mildenhall, Suffolk. NC® 14:40—52.
1982 Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, University of Glasgow, 1V. Diocletian to Zeno.
London.
ROEREN, R.
1962 Ein miinzdatierter Grabfund der friihen Merowingerzeit aus Heilbronn-Béckingen. Fundber-
ichte aus Schwaben, N.F. 16:130. Stuttgart.
ROLLAND, M.
1976 Monnaies rares des Ve et Vle siécles: Un aes quatre inédit de l'usurpateur Leontius (484).
Cahiers numismatiques 12:6-7.
ROscu, G.
1978 ONOMA BASILEIAS. Studien zum offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaisertitel in spdtantiker und friihbyzan-
tinischer Zeit, Byzantina Vindobonensia 10. Vienna.
ROvUECHE, C.
1984
RuGGInI, L.
1961
1962
Ryan, N. S.
1988
SABATIER, J.
1862
SALAMA, P.
1985
Acclamations in the Later Roman Empire: New Evidence from Aphrodisias. /RS 74:181-99.
A proposito del follis nel IV secolo. Atti del Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei® 16:306—19.
Fonti, problemi e studi sull’eta di Galla Placidia. Athenaeum 40:373-—91.
Fourth Century Coin Finds from Roman Britain, BAR British Series 183. Oxford.
Description générale des monnaies byzantines frappées sous les empereurs d’Orient depuis Arcadius jus-
qu’a la prise de Constantinople par Mahomet II, 2 vols. Paris.
Economie monétaire de l'Afrique du Nord dans |’Antiquité classique. In Histoire et archéologie
330
1988
BIBLIOGRAPHY
de l'Afrique du Nord. Ile Colloque international (Grenoble, 5—9 avril 1983) (= Bulletin archéologique
du Comité des Travaux historiques et scientifiques? 19B): 183-202.
Un trésor inconnu d’Honorius a Cherchel. QT 17:287-95.
SALIS, J. W. F. DE
1867
The Coins of the Two Eudoxias, Eudocia, Placidia, and Honoria, and of Theodosius II, Mar-
cian, and Leo I, Struck in Italy. NC? 7:203-15.
SALISBURY, F. S.
1927a
1927b
1927c
1929a
1929b
193]
1933
On the Date of the Notitia Dignitatum. JRS 17:102-6.
Richborough Coin-Problems. NC* 7:108-—20.
The Richborough Coins and the End of Roman Occupation. Antiquaries Journal 7:268-81.
A Hoard of Roman Coins from Jordan Hill, Weymouth. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History
and Archaeological Society 51:158-82.
The Historical Setting of Theodosian Coinage. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society
1929:7-9.
Late Fourth-Century Currency in Britain. NC® 11:14-27.
The Notitia Dignitatum and the Western Mints. JRS 23:217-20.
SALISBURY, F. S., AND J. W. E. PEARCE
1928
The Coins. In J. P. Bushe-Fox, Second Report on the Excavation of the Roman Fort at Richborough,
Kent (= Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, no. 7):
106-231. Oxford.
SALLET, A. VON
1929
Die antike Miinzen, ed. K. Regling. Berlin.
SALOMONSON, J. W.
1961
SANDOR, S.
1969
ScHoppa, H.
1962
SCHRAMM, P.
1958
Zwei spatrémische Geschenk-Silberbarren mit eingestempelten Inschriften in Leiden. Oud-
heidkundige Mededeelingen uit het Ryksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden 42:63-—77.
Uber den Miinzumlauf in Pannonien zu Ende des 4. Jahrhunderts. Folia Archaeologica 20:69—
78.
Ein spatr6mischer Miinzfund von Wiesbaden-Kastel. In Fundberichte aus Hessen 2:158-—67.
E.
Sphaira, Globus, Reichsapfel. Stuttgart.
SCHUBERT, H.
1984
SCHULTZ, H.
1933
SEAR, D. R.
1970
1983
1987
SEBESTA, J.
1957
SEECK, O.
1876
1919
1920
SEEGER, J. A.
1976
SEGRE, A.
1941
Studien zum spatrémischen Miinzumlauf in Agypten, I. Folles- und Aes-Schatze aus dem 4.
Jahrhundert n. Chr. In Studien zu Fundmiinzen der Antike, 11. Aufsdtze, ed. M. R. Alf6ldi: 75-
267. Berlin.
S.
The Roman Evacuation of Britain. /RS 23:36—45.
Roman Coins and Their Values, 2nd ed. London.
The Forgotten Century—from the Death of Theodosius I to the Accession of Anastasius I.
SAN 14:47-9, 58, 64-7.
Byzantine Coins and Their Values, 2nd ed. London.
Neznama Byzantska mince. Moravské Numismatické Zpravy 3:34.
(Ed.) Notitea Dignitatum. Berlin.
Regesten der Kaiser und Papste fiir die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr. Stuttgart.
Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, V-V1. Stuttgart.
A Hoard of Late Roman Bronze Coins. Coin Hoards 2, no. 187: 55—60.
Inflation and Its Implication in Early Byzantine Times. Byzantion 15 (1940-1): 249-79.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 331
1943 Some Traits of Monetary Inflations in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Seminar 1:20-31.
1964 Note sulle monete romane dal I sec. d. Cr. all’eta bizantina. Maia 16:259-75.
SEIBT, W.
1982 Wurde die Notitia dignitatum 408 von Stilicho in Auftrag gegeben? Mitteilungen des Instituts fiir
Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung 90:339—46.
SHERIDAN, J. J.
1966 The Altar of Victory—Paganism’s Last Stand. L’Antiquité classique 35:186—202.
S1RAGO, V. A.
1961 Galla Placidia e la transformazione politica dell’Occidente, Université de Louvain, Recueil des tra-
vaux d’histoire et de philologie 25. Louvain-Paris.
SKEAT, T. C.
1967 (Ed.) Papyri from Panopolis in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, Chester Beatty Monograph 10.
Dublin.
SOKOLOVA, I. V.
1983 Monety 2 pechati Vizantuskogo Khersona. Leningrad.
SPERBER, D.
1974 Roman Palestine 200-400: Money and Prices. Ramat-Gan.
STANGANELLI, F.
1950 Comiso: Ripostiglio di monete auree del Basso Impero. Notizie degli Scavi: 336-7.
STEBBING, W. P. D.
1932 “The Coins.” In J. P. Bushe-Fox, Third Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richborough
(= Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London, no. 10):
187-235. Oxford.
1949 “The Coins.” In J. P. Bushe-Fox, Fourth Report on the Excavations of the Roman Fort at Richbor-
ough, Kent (= Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London,
no. 16): 273-320. Oxford.
STEDTFELD, C.
1901 Wiirselen bei Aachen: Miinzenfund. Bonner Jahrbiicher 106:112-6.
STEFAN, F.
1925 Die Miinzstdtte Sirmiums unter den Ostgoten und Gepiden. Halle.
STEIN, E., AND J. P. PALANQUE (ED.)
1949-59 Histoire du Bas-Empire, 2 vols. Paris-Brussels-Amsterdam.
STEINBUCHEL, A.
1826 Notice sur les médaillons romains en or du Musée impérial et royal de Vienne trouvés en Hongrie dans
les années MDCCXCVII et MDCCCV. Vienna.
STOJANOV, S.
1982 Zlatno monetno sdkroviste ot Abritus V v. na n. é. Sofia (with German and English translations).
StTorcu, R. H.
1970 The Trophy and the Cross: Pagan and Christian Symbolism in the Fourth and Fifth Centu-
ries. Byzantion 40:105-17.
STROHEKER, K. F.
1948 Der senatorische Adel im spdtantiken Gallien. Tibingen.
STRZYGOWSKI, J.
1893 Die Tyche von Konstantinopel. In Analecta Graecensia: Festschrift zur 42. Versammlung deutscher
Philologen und Schulmanner in Wien 1893; 141-53. Graz.
Studia Jeloénik
1988 Studia Numismatica Labacensia Alexandro Jeloénik oblata (= Situla 26). Ljubljana.
SUTHERLAND, C. H. V.
1936 A Late Roman Hoard from Kiddington, Oxon. NC* 16:82-7.
1938 Minimi, Radiate and Diademed: Their Place in Roman and Post-Roman Currencies. Transac-
tions of the International Numismatic Congress, London, 1936: 252-61. London.
332 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1940 A Theodosian Silver Hoard from Rams Hill. Antiquaries Journal 20:481-5.
1945 “Carausius II,” “Censeris,” and the Barbarous Fel. Temp. Reparatio Overstrikes. NC® 5:125-33.
1949 The Canterbury minimissemi Again. NC® 9:242—4.
1956 Coinage in Britain in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries. In Dark-Age Britain: Studies Presented ta
E. T. Leeds, ed. D. B. Harden: 3—10. London.
1962 Coins monétaires et officines a l’€poque du Bas-Empire: Note supplémentaire. SM 11:73-5.
1986 Compliment or Complement? Dr. Levick on Imperial Coin Types. NC 146:85-93.
TANINI, H.
1791 Numismata Imperatorum Romanorum a Traiano Decio ad Constantinum Draconem ab Anselmo Ban-
durio editorum supplementum. Rome.
THIRION, M.
1965 Les vota impériaux sur les monnaies entre 337 et 364. SRN 44:5-21.
1967 Les trésors monétaires gaulois et romains trouvés en Belgique, Travaux du Cercle d’Etudes numis-
matiques 3. Brussels.
1972 La livre romaine. BCEN 9:1—4.
‘THOMPSON, M.
1954 Coins, from the Roman through the Venetian Period. The Athenian Agora, 11. Princeton.
Topp, M.
1964 A Late Roman Bronze Hoard from the East Containing Die-links. NC’ 4:235-9.
TOLsrol, J.
1912-14 Monnaies byzantines, fascs. 1-3. St. Petersburg.
ToMLIN, R. S. O.
1980 Fairy Gold: Monetary History in the Augustan History. In King 1980a: 255-79.
TORELLI, M.
1970 Gravisca. 54. Piccolo tesoretto di 174 solidi aurei. In Nuovo tesori dell’antica Tusca. Catalogo della
Mostra Viterbo 1970: 74. Viterbo.
TOYNBEE, J. M. C.
1940 Two New Gold Medallions of the Later Roman Empire. NC® 20:9-23.
1944 Roman Medallions, Numismatic Studies 5. New York. (Repr. 1986, with updated bibliography
and list of finds by W. E. Metcalf.)
1947 Roma and Constantinopolis in Late-Antique Art from 312 to 365. JRS 37:135—44.
1951 Roma and Constantinopolis in Late-Antique Art from 365 to 578. In Studies Presented to David
Moore Robinson, ed. G. E. Mylonas, I1:261—77. Saint Louis.
TRAU, F.
1871 Neue Falschungen rémischer Miinzen. NZ 3:105—42.
TRAVAGLINI, E.
1974 Thesaurus Massafrensis. Brindisi. (Superseded by Hahn 1987.)
TRICOU, J.
1968 Un sou d’or de Constantin III pour Lyon. BSFN 23:262-3.
Tupor, D.
1965 Sucidava: Une cité daco-romaine et byzantine en Dacie, Collection Latomus 80. Brussels.
TuRCAN, R.
1961 Trésors monétaires trouvés a Tipasa: La circulation du bronze en Afrique romaine et vandale
aux Ve et Vle siécles ap. J.-C. Libyca (Archéologie, Epigraphie) 9:201—57.
1972 Une trouvaille monétaire 4 Announa (Algérie). Latomus 31:130—45. (Repr., with some re-
arrangement of text, in Turcan 1984: 27-42.)
1984 Trésors monétaires de Tipasa et d’Announa, Collection du Centre d’Etudes romaines et gallo-
romaines, n.s. 2. Lyon. (Includes a reprint of Turcan 1972.)
Tusa, A.
1966 La circolazione monetaria nella Sicilia bizantina ed il ripostiglio da Castellana (Palermo). In
Bizantino-Sicula (= Quaderni del Istituto siciliano di Studi bizantini e neoellenici 2): 105-10.
Palermo.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 333
ULRICH-Bansa, O.
1935
1939
1942
1949
1953
1954
1966
1968
1972
1976
UNGARO, L.
1985
Note sulle monete dell’Augusta Aelia Licinia Eudoxia. Numismatica 1:25-31.
Monete d’oro del V e VI secolo rinvenute a Sebatum (S. Lorenzo di Pusteria). Notizie degli
Scavi 64:150-—64.
Note sulle monete dell’imperatore Leone II (473-474). Numismatica 8:8-20.
Moneta Mediolanensis (352-498). Venice.
Cinque nuove monete di Aquileia romana. Studi Aquileiesi offerti a Giovanni Brusin: 255-86.
Padua.
S. Genesio (Pavia): Ripostiglio di monete d’argento del IV secolo d. Cr. Notizie degli Scavi:
166-84.
Note di numismatica Theodosiana: II solidus aureus dal 392 al 395. RIN 68:101-23.
Les premiéres émissions du tremis aureus (383-395). BCEN 5:80-94.
Note sul semisse e le frazioni auree votive. QT 1:145—65.
La monetazione di Giovanni (423-425 A.D.). QT 5:276-90.
II ripostiglio della Casa delle Vestale, 1899. BdN 4:47-173.
VAN DER KuJjL, H.
1969
Merkwaardige omschriften op Oost-Romeinse munten (II). De Geuzenpenning 19:56.
VAN DER VIN, J. P. A.
1984
1986
1988
Obbicht: Romeinse munten op en om een villaterrein. /MP 71:5-25.
Onder een oude eik . . . De Beeldenaar 10:449—52. (Venlo AV hoard [1675] of ca. 410.)
Late Fourth-Century Gold Hoards in the Netherlands. RIN 90:263-79.
Van Es, W. A.
1960
VARADY, L.
1969
Vasié, M.
1980
1988
De romeinse muntvondsten uit de drie nordelijke provincies: Een periodisering der relaties. Groningen.
Das letzte Jahrhundert Pannoniens (376-476). Amsterdam.
Ostava rimskog bronzanog novca IV i V veka iz Viminacijuma. Starinar 31:123-—61.
The Circulation of Bronze Coinage at the End of the 4th and the Beginning of the 5th Cen-
turies in Moesia Prima and Pannonia Secunda. In Studia Jeloénik 1988: 165-84.
VASILIEV, A. A.
1950 Justin the First, Dumbarton Oaks Studies I. Cambridge, Mass.
VEGUuE, P.
1963
Vejvopa, O.
1947
VERA, D.
1974
1975
Una siliqua de Maximo Tirano en el Gabinete Numismatico de Catalunia. Boletin de la II Ex-
posicién de Numismdtica Catalana, 3-17 novembre 1963: 29-31. Barcelona.
Dva vzacné byzantské solidy. Numismatické listy 2:65—-7.
I nummulari di Roma e la politica monetaria nel IV secolo d. C. (per una interpretazione di
Simmaco, Relatio 29). Atti della Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 108:201—50.
I rapporti fra Magno Massimo, Teodosio e Valentiniano II nel 383-384. Athenaeum 53:267-
301.
VERMEULE, C. C.,
1956-7
1957-8
1959
Roman Numismatic Art, A.D. 200—400. NCirc 64 (1956): 473-80, 517-22; 65 (1957): 1-6.
Aspects of Victoria on Roman Coins, Gems, and in Monumental Art. NCzre 65 (1957): 357-
62, 537-8; 66 (1958): 33-4, 94-6, 138-41.
The Goddess Roma in the Art of the Roman Empire. Cambridge, Mass.
VIDAL BARDAN, J. M.
1984
Tesorillo de solidos de Arcadio y Honorio hallado en Jerez de la Frontera (Cadiz). GN 74-
75:123-30.
VIKAN, G., AND J. NESBITT
1980
Security in Byzantium: Locking, Sealing and Weighing. Washington, D.C.
VILLARONGA, L.
1976
La moneda de Barcetona. Barcelona.
334 BIBLIOGRAPHY
VOETTER, O.
1921 Die Miinzen der rimischen Kaiser, Kaiserinnen und Caesaren von Diocletianus (284) bis Romulus
(476). Katalog der hinterlassenen Sammlung und Aufzeichnungen des Herrn Paul Gerin. Vienna.
VoIcr, J.
1824 Uber die bei Klein-Tromp unfern Braunsberg aufgefundenen rémischen Goldmiinzen. Bei-
trdge zur Kunde Preussens 6:412-31.
VoIROL, A.
1944 Die Wandlung der griechischen Siegesgéttin zum christlichen Engel nach antiken Minzbild-
ern. Jahresberichte der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa.
1945 Miinzdokumente der Galla Placidia und ihres Sohnes Valentinian und Versuch einer Chron-
ologie der Miinzpragung unter Theodosius II (408-450). Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden
Gesellschaft in Basel 56:431—45.
WaacE, D. B.
1952 Antioch-on-the-Orontes, IV, Part 2. Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Crusaders’ Coins. Princeton.
WapE, W. V.
1953 Coins from Aldborough, Boroughbridge, Yorkshire—I/surtum Brigantum. NC® 13:132-4.
WALKER, D. R.
1967 A Copper Coinage for Leontius I. NCirc 75:264-5.
WEBER, F. P.
1892 A Find of Small Roman Copper Coins. NC* 12:179-82.
WEIGAND, E.
1930 Der Monogrammnimbus auf der Tiir von S. Sabina in Rom. BZ 30 (1929-30): 588-95.
WEILLER, R.
1970 Die rémischen Miinzen aus den Villa von Remerschen (1970). Hémecht 22:467-9.
WEISER, W.
1980 Eine neue Theodosianische Kleinbronze. SM 30:69-71.
1987 Felictum temporum reparatio: Kaiser Constans fiihrt gefangene Franken aus ihren Dorfern ab.
RSN 66:161-74.
WELZL VON WELLENHEIM, L.
1884-5 Catalogue de la grande collection de monnaies et médailles de Mr Leopold Welzl de Wellenheim, 2 vols.
in 3. Vienna.
WERNER, J.
1935 Miinzdatierte Austrasische Grabfunde. Berlin.
1949 Zu den auf Oland und Gotland gefundenen byzantinischen Goldmiinzen. Fornvdnnen.
44:257-86.
1958 Kriegergraber aus des ersten Halfte des 5. Jahrhunderts zwischen Schelde und Weser. Bonner
Jahrbuch 158:372-413.
1971 Neue Analyse des Childerichgrabes von Tournai. Rheinische Vierteljahrsblatter 35:43-6.
West, L. C.
1941 The Roman Gold Standard and the Ancient Sources. American Journal of Philology 62:289—
301.
West, L. C., AND A. C, JOHNSON
1949 Currency in Roman and Byzantine Egypt. Princeton.
WHEELER, R. E. M., AND T. V. WHEELER
1932 Excavations .. . in Lydney Park, Glos., Society of Antiquaries, Research Report 9. London.
WHITTAKER, C. R.
1980 Inflation and the Economy in the Fourth Century A.D. In King 1980a: 3-22.
Wiczay, M.
1814 Musei Hedervari in Hungaria numos antiquos graecos et latinos descripsit. Vienna.
WIELANDT, F.
1967 Die Fundmiinzen aus dem frankischen Graberfeld Klepsau, Krs. Buchen. Hamburger Beitriige
fiir Numismatik 7:11-20.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 335
WIELOWIEJSKI, J.
1966 Zagadnienie representatywnosci znalezisk monet rzymskich. WN 10:153-—62.
WIGHTMAN, E. M.
1970 Roman Trier and the Treveri. London.
1985 Gallia Belgica. London.
WILLERS, H.
1898 R6émische Silberbarren mit Stempeln. NZ 30:211-35.
WILLNER, B.
1895 Moderne Falschungen rémischer Miinzen des Luigi Cigoi in Udine. NZ 27:115-24.
Wirrte, A. DE
1902 Moules monétaires romains en terre cuite récemment découverts en Egypte. RBN 58:29-36.
WrortT, W.
1911 Catalogue of the Coins of the Vandals, Ostrogoths and Lombards, and of the Empires of Thessalonica,
Nicaea and Trebizond in the British Museum. London.
WUILLEUMIER, P.
1953 Lyon, métropole des Gaules. Paris.
WyTZES, J.
1977 Der letzte Kampf des Heidentums in Rom, Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans
Empire romain 56. Leiden.
Zacos, G., AND A. VEGLERY
1959 An Unknown Solidus of Anastasios I. NCirc 67:154—5.
1960 Marriage Solidi of the Fifth Century. NCirc 68:73—4.
ZADOKS-JOSEPHUS JITTA, A. N.
1950 De Romeinse medaillons van Velp. MP 37:85-—93.
1951 The Contorniates in the Royal Coin Cabinet at The Hague. Mnemosyne* 4:81—92.
1953 Notes and Questions on Coin Ornaments. Congrés international de Numismatique, Paris, 1953, I
(Actes): 453-9.
1954 The Late Roman Gold Hoard of Beilen, II. The Coins. Palaeohistoria 4:103-11.
1957 Molenend 1957. JMP 44:65-6.
1960 Muntvondsten—Midlum (Fr.)1925. JMP 47:94-6.
1987 Romeinse en vroeg-middeleeuwse muntsieraden. De Beeldenaar 11:59-—61.
ZONARAS, JOHN
1897 Epitome historarum, III, ed. M. Pinder. Bonn.
It
CATALOGUE OF THE COINS
Background to the Collections
and List of Previous Owners, Donors, and Dealers
The history of the Dumbarton Oaks and Whittemore collections, of which the coins cata-
logued in this volume form a part, has been briefly described in DOC I.xiii—xviii. The basis of
the Dumbarton Oaks collection was that of Hayford Peirce (1883-1946), formed in Europe
mainly in the 1920s and early 1930s and contributing nearly a third of the coins in this volume
(306 coins). The second largest element (217 coins) forms part of the collection of Thomas
Whittemore (1871-1950), in the Fogg Museum in Cambridge, with 80 of them being on loan to
Dumbarton Oaks and in its trays. The third largest element (161 coins) is from the Grierson
collection, the bulk of them having been acquired from him in 1956 and the remainder given at
various times subsequently. A few further coins came as gifts or legacies from different benefac-
tors, but the majority were purchased from coin dealers or at auction sales in Europe in the
1960s and 1970s to fill gaps in the collection.
The list that follows is partly intended as an index to the provenances recorded in the
catalogue, partly as a guide to the persons involved. Dealers and collectors of each generation
generally know each other but are unable to identify their predecessors, and a list of this kind
forms part of the history of the collection. The use of the word “scholar” to describe individuals
means that they have published works on numismatics as well as being in many cases collectors.
When a sale extended over several days, only the date of the opening day is given.
ANDRONIKOS (Istanbul). Coin dealer, the source of many of Peirce’s coins. 15, 28, 65, 85, 115,
117, 160, 164, 176, 215, 219, 226, 241, 254, 266, 277, 290, 299, 312, 318, 324, 328,
330, 353, 358, 363, 388, 392, 399, 432, 436, 473, 481, 520, 541, 550, 558, 600, 619,
621, 629, 659, 661-2, 873
Ars Crassica (Lucerne). The name given to a great series of sales of Greek and Roman coins
organized by Lucien Naville in the 1920s and 1930s, mainly in association with
Jacob Hirsch (Munich). 813, 877
Ars ET Nummus (Milan; = Nascia, G.). 338, 710, 728-9, 758, 762, 782, 848
ASHTON, SiR LEIGH (1897-1983). Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Col-
lector. 457
BALDWIN, Messrs. A. H. & Sons (London). Coin dealers since the 1890s. 12, 63, 66, 74, 93,
116, 148, 200, 204, 246, 257, 262, 270, 278, 291-3, 297-8, 311, 340, 345, 348, 376,
407, 435, 482, 494, 518, 570, 572, 575, 582, 604-5, 620, 627, 635, 663, 685, 698—
700, 703, 705, 720, 732, 735, 755, 759, 787-8, 791, 814, 822, 845, 853, 855, 861,
908
BaLpwiy, A. H. F. (“Frep”) (London). A director of A. H. Baldwin & Sons who died in January
1970 and whose private collection was sold by Glendining, 21.xi.1969. 502, 598,
823, 826, 852, 899
BANK Leu (Zurich). This great banking firm has dealt in coins, mainly by way of auction, since
the 1940s. See further under A. Hess NAcHrF. 329, 347, 391, 515, 530, 549, 632,
690
339
340 BACKGROUND TO THE COLLECTIONS
BARANOWSKY, MICHELE (Milan, later Rome). Coin dealer from the 1920s to his death in 1968,
his firm being continued subsequently by his son and daughter as separate estab-
lishments. 360, 688
BELLINGER, ALFRED R. (1893-1978). Scholar and collector, specialist in Hellenistic coinage and
joint author of DOC. 532
BERGHAUS, PETER (1919—). Scholar, one of the most eminent numismatists of this century. 595
BERTELE, Tommaso (1892-1971; Verona). Scholar and collector. His collection of Byzantine
coins was acquired by Dumbarton Oaks in 1956. 342, 731, 878
Bio, C. (Arlington, Virginia). Coin dealer. 561
Buiss, Mrs. RoBERT Woops (1879-1969). Joint founder of the Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection. 377
BouLTON, SiR SAMUEL (1830-1918). Collector. His coins were acquired from his heirs by Spink
in 1943. 944
BourGEy, ETIeNNE (1865-1945; Paris), succeeded by his son Emile. Coin dealers since the
1890s. 289, 517, 760, 796, 805, 810, 815, 821, 874, 920, 932
BRUMMER, J. (New York). Dealer in antiques and objects d’art, including coins. 364
Cran1, Louts (1884-1929; Paris). Coin dealer from the early 1920s, the firm subsequently con-
tinued under his brother Pierre down to the latter’s death in 1957. 42, 124, 181,
192, 284, 386, 630, 713, 740, 928
Cripps, CARLO (Milan). Coin dealer from the 1960s onward. 306, 616
Cuzz1, ArTurRO (Trieste). Collector. The Roman and Byzantine part of his collection was sold
by Baranowsky, 9.xii.1929. 537, 856
DILLEN, JEFF (Brussels). Coin dealer in the late 1930s, his firm being carried on by his widow,
after his death in a German concentration camp during the Second World War,
down to her own death in 1955. 216, 296, 739
Durr, Capt. Collector. Coins bought by Spink in the early 1940s. 636
EGGER, BRUDER (Budapest, later Vienna). The chief firm of coin dealers in the Austro-
Hungarian Empire from the 1860s to the first World War. It continued on a smaller
scale down to 1930. 614, 628
EGYPTIAN COLLECTION. Untraced. 670
Evans, SiR ARTHUR J. (1851-1941; Oxford). One of the most distinguished British archaeolo-
gists and collectors of the first half of this century. His main series of Greek and
Roman coins was disposed of in the third Ars Classica sale (Lucerne, 16.vi.1922),
but he continued to collect, and more coins were sold in the A. E. Cahn sale 80
(Frankfurt am Main, 27.11.1933) and in the Ars Classica sale 17 (Lucerne,
3.x.1934). 877
FAaLCo, GIUSEPPE DE (Naples). Coin dealer. 534, 587, 599, 737
Fry... Untraced, perhaps an abbreviation of a person or place name (? Hungarian). Source
of some of Peirce’s coins. 143
FEUARDENT. See ROLLIN ET FEUARDENT.
FLORANGE, JULES (1862-1936; Paris). Coin dealer. The firm passed in due course to his sons
Charles and Jules, and eventually to Mme. Kapamadji. 592
“FOREIGN AMBASSADOR.” Glendining sale, 7.111.1957. 82, 269, 460, 533, 651, 723, 834, 939, 946
FRANCESCHI, BARTOLOMMEO (Brussels). Coin dealer in succession to Charles Dupriez (d. 1952).
3, 53, 155-6, 250, 288, 692-3, 709, 764, 860, 865, 896
FRIEND, ALBERT M. (1894-1956; Princeton). Art historian, Director of Studies at Dumbarton
Oaks, 1948-54; his coin collection came by bequest to Dumbarton Oaks in 1957.
2, 237, 315, 350, 367, 372, 421, 437, 447, 455, 461, 483, 596, 601, 714, 789, 824
GALLWEY, LieuT.-Cot. H. D. (1915-83). Collector. 812
PREVIOUS OWNERS, DONORS, AND DEALERS 34]
Gans, Epwarb (1887-1990; New York, later Berkeley, Calif.). Dealer (“Numismatic Fine Arts”).
356, 448, 857
GanTz, Rev. W. L. (1873-1940). English collector. Coins sold by Glendining, 24.v.1941. 385
GIMBEL’s (New York). Department store, including a coin department. 618
GLENDINING & Co. (London). The leading firm of coin auctioneers in London since the 1920s.
71, 244, 396, 608, 620, 691, 724, 750, 771, 877. See also “FOREIGN AMBASSADOR,”
LAWRENCE, L. A. MESSENGER, L. G. P. SYDENHAM, REV. E. A.
GoparT, R. French collector. Coins sold by Florange and Ciani, 14.vi.1923. 736
GossELIN, P. F. J. French collector. Coins dispersed in two Paris sales, Raoul-Rochette, 17.i.1831,
and Rollin et Feuardent, 7.111.1864. 832
GRANTLEY, Lorp (1855-1943). English collector. Collection sold by Glendining in eleven sales
over 1943—45, the lots being numbered continuously from | to 4636. Lot 2777 (20
small AE), bought by Seaby and the source of several coins catalogued here, was in
the seventh sale of 25.vii.1944. 344, 433, 454, 565, 577, 581, 583, 585, 900, 931
GRIERSON, PHILIP (1910—). Scholar and collector. The bulk of his Byzantine collection was pur-
chased by Dumbarton Oaks in 1956, but some further coins, either retained by
him for further study or acquired subsequently, were presented later at various
times. See Concordance | (56.6.1—49; 56.13.1-100; 86.6.1-11) and 135, 264, 336,
393—4, 510, 518, 563-5, 568, 730, 772—4, 812
Guerson. Unidentified dealer or collector from whom Peirce acquired 828 in May 1926.
HALL, H. Piatt (1863-1949). Collector. His classical coins were dispersed in two Glendining
sales of 19.vii.1950 and 16.xi.1950, the late Roman and Byzantine ones being in
the second sale. 81, 609, 812
HAMBURGER, L. & L. (Frankfurt am Main). Coin dealers and auctioneers from the 1860s to
1929. 858, 877
HAnsEN, F. J. (d. 1945: London). Danish consul. Collector. 804
Hess, ADOLPH, NACHF. (Lucerne). A firm set up in the 1930s by Hermann Rosenberg (1896—
1970) in partial succession to that of Adolph Hess (Frankfurt am Main). A series
of important sales in association with Bank Leu began in 1954. 72, 390, 395, 690,
701, 783, 864, 866, 916
Hirscu, JAcos (1874-1955; Munich, later New York). Art and coin dealer. See also Ars CLAs-
sica. 870
HoFFMANN, HEnrRI (1823-97; Paris). Coin dealer. Part of his collection was sold in 1896-7, and
his remaining stock was disposed of by Rollin et Feuardent, 2.v.1898. 832
Horsky, J. (1849-1917). Czech collector. His ancient coins were sold by Hess Nachf.,
30.iv.1917. 941
ISTANBUL (bazaar). 32, 128, 238, 243, 283, 552
Kapamapji, NapiA (1901-78; Paris). Coin dealer in succession to the firm of Florange, whose
name she carried on. See also LONGUET, H.
Kress, Kart (1892-1969; Munich). Coin dealer from 1938 in succession to the firm of Helbing
Nachf. 305
KRICHELDORF, HANS HELLMUTH (1909-80; Stuttgart). Coin dealer. 938
KRUGER, FrAu. German collector, untraced. 595
KuNST UND MinzeEn A. G. (Lugano). Coin dealers. 673, 683
LawrENCE, L. A. (1857-1949; London). Scholar and collector, especially in the field of English
coins. His collection was dispersed by Glendining over the years 1950-1, the Ro-
man imperial coins in the second sale of 17.1.1951. 9, 14, 34, 63, 66, 93, 116, 119,
134, 147-9, 183, 194, 197, 199, 200, 202, 205, 247, 249, 697, 700, 703, 706-7, 755,
759, 800
342 BACKGROUND TO THE COLLECTIONS
Leu. See BANK LEu.
LINCOLN, W. S. (London). Coin dealer. After his death in the 1920s, his stock was acquired by
Schulman. 16, 38, 58, 62, 81, 105, 129, 137, 169, 172, 185, 224, 227, 235, 294, 498,
609
LoNGUET, HENRI (1887-1963; Mulhouse). Scholar and collector. His Byzantine collection was
acquired by Mme. Kapamadji and the bulk of it auctioned by Platt, 17.11.1970.
336, 564, 568, 576, 955
MANGo, CyriL (1928-; Oxford). Byzantinist; worked for many years at Dumbarton Oaks. 98
MESSENGER, L. G. P. (d. 1951). Collector. Coins sold by Glendining, 21.xi.1951. 182
MONMOUTH STAMP AND COIN SHop (Red Bank, N.J.). Coin dealers. 40
MontacGu, HyMan (1846-95). Collector. His Roman coins were sold by Rollin and Feuardent,
20.iv.1896. 901
MUNZEN UND MEDAILLEN A.G. BasEL (Basel). Coin dealers; a continuation of the firm of Miinz-
handlung Basel, the name having been changed in 1942, and the firm going back
ultimately to that of Adolph E. Cahn (Frankfurt am Main). 69, 135, 161, 223, 350,
377, 393—4, 444, 452-3, 554-5, 594, 655, 665, 684, 689, 722, 726-7, 730, 743,
752, 770, 785, 794, 806, 808, 817, 832, 848, 872, 934
MUNZHANDLUNG BaseEL. A firm founded in 1933 by the brothers Erich (1913—) and Herbert
Cahn (1915-), grandsons of Adolph E. Cahn of Frankfurt am Main. In 1942 it was
renamed Miinzen und Medaillen A.G. Basel.
Nascia, Giuseppe (d. 1982). Coin dealer in Milan, trading as Ars et Nummus (q.v.) from the
1960s to 1982.
NAVILLE, Lucien (1886-1956; Geneva). Scholar and coin dealer. See Ars CLASSICA.
NIGGELER, W. (1878-1964). Collector. His Roman coins were included in the third sale of his
collection, Bank Leu and MMAG Basel, 2.xi1.1967. 818, 825, 831, 833, 867
NikLovitz (Budapest). Coin dealer. 797, 827
“NUMISMATIC FINE Arts.” See GANS, E.
PaGE, T. (Paris). Coin dealer. 196(?), 588, 638, 778-9
PEIRCE, HAyrorD (1883-1946). Art historian and collector. His coin collection, acquired in
1948, was the nucleus around which that of Dumbarton Oaks was formed. See
Concordance | (48.17.94 ff).
PHILIPP OF SAXE-COBURG-GOTHA, PRINCE. Scholar and collector. His large but very miscella-
neous collection was sold by Hamburger, 20.11.1928. 434, 936
PLATT, MAISON (Paris). Firm of coin dealers founded in 1906 by Clément Platt (1874-1952)
and continued by his son Marcel in association with René Kampmann (d. 1977).
31, 196(?), 253, 267, 272, 310, 462, 487, 751, 775, 792-3, 842, 927
PONTON D’AMECOURT, GUSTAVE, VICOMTE DE (1828-88). French scholar and collector. His Ro-
man and Byzantine coins were sold by Rollin et Feuardent, 24.iv.1887.
PoRTER, WILLIAM B. (Washington, D.C.). Collector. 239
QUELEN, E. pe. Scholar and collector. His coins were sold by Rollin et Feuardent, 14.v.1888.
832
RASHLEIGH, J. C. S. (1872-1961). British collector. The first part of his collection, containing
the Roman and Byzantine coins, was sold by Glendining, 14.i.1953. 458
Rattro, Mario (Paris, later Milan). Coin dealer, successor to Rodolfo Ratto. 656, 666, 719, 803,
838, 895, 929
RaTTo, RopoLro (1864-1949; Milan and Lugano). Founder in 1900 of one of the major Eu-
ropean firms of coin dealers and auctioneers. 157
RAYMOND, WayYTE (1886-1956; New York). Coin dealer. 10, 77, 127(?), 191, 210, 233, 378, 389,
463, 567(?), 574, 694
PREVIOUS OWNERS, DONORS, AND DEALERS 343,
RECAMIER, ETIENNE (1834-93). Collector. His Roman collection and that of coins of Lyon was
sold by Bourgey, 2.111.1925. 808
ROBERT, CHARLES (1812-87; Paris). French numismatist and collector. The sale catalogue of
his coins of Lorraine and the Three Bishoprics (Rollin et Feuardent, 29.iii.1886)
remains a standard work of reference, but his ancient coins seem to have been
disposed of privately during his lifetime. 598
ROLLIN ET FEUARDENT (Paris). One of the main nineteenth-century firms of numismatists,
founded in 1860. After the death of the younger Camille Rollin (d. 1906), the firm
continued under the name of Feuardent Fréres. 702
St. Louis Coin Company (St. Louis. Mo.). Coin dealers. 78, 142, 146, 252, 287, 396, 522, 524,
624, 631, 643, 650, 671, 682, 696, 708, 716, 742, 747, 761, 786, 854, 889, 897-8,
910, 923, 947
SANTAMARIA, P. & P. (Rome). A firm of coin dealers founded in 1898 by the cousins Pietro
(1863-1930) and Pio (1881-1947), and carried on by their descendants. 863, 918,
948
SCHINDLER, Leo (1888-1957; Neumarkt, later Vienna). Scholar and collector, specializing in
Byzantine coins. His collection was acquired by Dumbarton Oaks from his widow
in 1960. 159
SCHULMAN, Hans M. F. (1913—; New York). Coin dealer from the late 1930s to the 1960s. 242
SCHULMAN, JACQUES (1849-1914; Amsterdam). Founder of a firm that still exists under his
descendants. “Schulman” in the references implies this firm unless “Hans” is spe-
cifically mentioned. 38-9, 58, 62, 105, 129, 137, 169, 172, 185, 224, 227, 235, 294,
323, 349, 441, 485, 498, 741, 795, 807, 816, 819, 829, 844, 847, 851, 858, 875, 888,
924-6, 935, 949
SeaBy, B. A. Lrp. (London). A firm of coin dealers founded in 1926 by Herbert (“Bert”) Seaby
(1898-1979). 11, 23—4, 44-6, 48-51, 64, 68, 92, 97, 100, 102, 132, 136, 140, 144,
187-8, 206, 261, 344, 359, 361, 375, 433, 478, 565, 571, 577, 581, 583, 585, 602,
658, 677, 715, 717-18, 721, 769, 804, 835, 900, 931
SELTMAN, CHARLES T. (1886-1957; Cambridge, England). Classical scholar and collector. 560
SHAW, G. HowLanp (1893-1965). Diplomat and collector. His important collection of coins
and seals, acquired mainly in the Near East, was presented to Dumbarton Oaks in
1947. 19, 282, 429, 449, 543-4, 765
SOTHEBY, WILKINSON & Hopce (London). General auctioneers since the eighteenth century
but displaced by Glendining as the chief London firm of coin auctioneers in the
1920s. 316
Spink & Son (London). Art and antique dealers since the eighteenth century, including, from
the 1890s, coins. 61, 79, 101, 163, 265, 268, 316, 346, 352, 365, 370, 385, 427, 445,
454, 457, 535, 553, 560, 606, 617, 636, 664, 667, 670, 681, 687, 830, 871, 887, 902,
917, 933, 944
STERNBERG, FRANK (Zurich). Coin dealer from the 1940s onward. 73, 428, 548
SYDENHAM, Rev. E. A. (1873-1948). Scholar and collector. His Roman coins were sold by Glen-
dining, 26.iii.1948. 5-7, 17-18, 35-6, 41, 47, 57, 59-60, 86, 88, 95, 123, 145, 218,
704, 763
TINCHANT, PAu (1893-1981; Brussels). Coin dealer from the 1930s to his retirement in 1964.
403, 801
TRAU, FRANZ (1881-1937; Vienna). Owner of a great family collection of Roman and Austrian
coins. The Roman section was sold by Gilhofer (Vienna) in association with Hess
(Lucerne) at Vienna, 22.v.1935, with further coins in a Hess sale of 28.iv.1936.
TyLer, WILLIAM R. (1910—). Director of Dumbarton Oaks, 1969-77. 193, 195, 198
344 BACKGROUND TO THE COLLECTIONS
ULRICH-BaNsSA, BARON Oscar (1892-1982; Besana Brianza). Italian scholar and collector, spe-
cializing during the last decades of his life in the coinage of late Roman Milan.
589-91, 674-6, 678-80, 733, 890—4, 904-7, 911-14, 921-2, 943, 945, 951-4. See
also above, p. 25 (Perugia hoard).
VINCHON, PAUL (Paris). Coin dealer. 1, 738
VoGEL, WILHELM. Collector. His immense general collection was sold by Hamburger and Hess
in eleven auctions over the years 1924—9. The late Roman coins were included in
Hess sale 194 (25.iii.1929). 869-70, 903, 950
WERTHEIMER, E. Collection sold by Glendining, 24.1.1945. 862
WHITTEMORE, THOMAS (1871-1950). Scholar and collector. The bulk of the coins described in
the catalogue here as “Whittemore” are now in the Fogg Museum at Harvard (see
Concordance 3), but those labeled “Whittemore Loan,” followed by an inventory
number, were deposited at Dumbarton Oaks on indefinite loan in 1955 (see Con-
cordance 2).
Zacos, GeorGE (d. 1983; Istanbul). Antique and coin dealer. 209, 214, 304, 313, 745
Presentation of the Catalogue and Plates
The coins are placed under the names of the rulers who appear in their inscriptions even
though these were not necessarily the persons responsible for their minting. They are then
arranged as far as possible in chronological order of issue, and thereafter under mints. Descrip-
tions are reduced to a minimum, since all the coins are illustrated.
Diameters are in millimeters (mm), weights are in grams (g), and the customary abbrevia-
tions are used for gold (AV), silver (AR), and copper alloy (AE). A number of the gold coins are
marked with graffiti (see above, p. 35), some of which appear to correspond to letters. Since they
are necessarily difficult to see in the illustrations, their presence has been noted in the text, apart
from ones that appear to be simply accidental scratches.
References to Dumbarton Oaks coins start with the accession numbers of these, the first two
figures giving the year of acquisition. Each accession number is followed by the name of the
collector or dealer from whom the coin was acquired or, in the case of coins from sales, the name
of the dealer, the date of the first day of the sale, and the number of the lot. “Whittemore” refers
to coins in the Whittemore collection held at the Fogg Museum, Cambridge (see Concordance
3). “Whittemore Loan,” followed by a loan inventory number, refers to those deposited at Dum-
barton Oaks (see Concordance 2).
Abbreviations used in the text of the catalogue are as follows:
acq. acquired
BM British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals
BMC Vand W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Coins of the Vandals . . . (see Wroth 1911 in Bibliogra-
phy)
BN Bibliothéque Nationale (Paris), Cabinet des Médailles
bt. bought
C H. Cohen, Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l'empire romain (see Bib-
liography)
coll. collection
ex Latin ex, used where the former owner of a coin was a known collector
ex. exergue
fd. found
g gram(s)
gl. cr. globus cruciger
inscr(s). inscription(s)
L. left
Lacam G. Lacam, La fin de l’empire romain et le monnayage or en Italie, 455—493 (see La-
cam 1983 in Bibliography)
lb. pound
LRBC Later Roman Bronze Coinage (see Bibliography)
MIRB Moneta Imperii Romani, Moneta Imperi Byzantini (see Hahn 1989 in Bibliography)
mm millimeters
mm. mint-mark
345
346
MMAG
monog.
nr.
obv.
off.
olim
PCR
prov.
Yr.
R
rev.
RIC
S
SLCC
T
UB
var.
W.
PRESENTATION OF THE CATALOGUE AND PLATES
Miinzen und Medaillen A.G.
monogram
near
obverse
officina
Latin “previously,” referring to an earlier owner
Principal Coins of the Romans (see Carson 1981 in Bibliography)
provenance
right
Ratto, Monnaies byzantines (see Bibliography)
reverse
The Roman Imperial Coinage, 1X (see Bibliography)
J. Sabatier, Description générale des monnaies byzantines (see Bibliography)
St. Louis Coin Company
J. Tolstoi, Monnaies byzantines (see Bibliography)
O. Ulrich-Bansa, Moneta Mediolanensis (see Ulrich-Bansa 1949 in Bibliography)
variety
with
The term Christogram is for descriptive purposes confined to the monogram formed by a
cross and a P (rho), the monogram of XP being described as a Chi-Rho.
PLATES
ARCADIUS 383-408
Coinage of 383-6
The early coinage is characterized by the childlike bust of
Arcadius.
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. Dating based on the number of C’s in AVCC
(CC); see above, pp. 100-2.
Class A. 383, 19 Jan—Oct. CCCC. Not represented.
Class B. Oct. 383-384 CCC
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (rosette diadem).
Rev. CONCORDI AAVCCC and officina numeral.
Constantinopolis seated facing, looking r., holding long
scepter in r. hand and globe in 1.; r. foot on prow. In ex.,
CONOB
1 Off. S 4.44 g¢ 20mm f T 14; R 2; RIC 230/
67(d)2
Class C. 384 CCCC
Obv. As last, rosette or pearl diadem.
Rev. As last, but CCCC
2 Off. © Rosette diadem 4.46g 20mm 7 T 16;
R—-; RIC 224/46(g)4
3 Off. I Rosette diadem 4.36 g 20mm ?f T 17;
R—; RIC 224/46(g)6
4 Off. 1 Pearl diadem 4.49 g 21mm | T17;R-;
RIC 224/46(f), but this off. not listed.
AE 2. Emperor standing, seated or kneeling captive in 1.
field.
Obv. DNARCAD IVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem), w.
spear and shield; above, Manus Dei holding crown.
Rev. GLORIARO MANORVM Emperor standing fac-
ing, looking I., w. labarum in r. hand and I. hand resting on
shield; to |., captive. In ex., mm.
5 Irregular issue (lettering, die-axis, etc.). CONT
Captive kneeling Rev.: GLORIARO[ 4.63 g 21
mm — T-—;R-; RIC 226/53(a)1; LRBC 2148
6 CONTI Captive seated 6.32 g 24mm | T 78;
R 22; RIC 226/53b; LRBC 2154
7 CONTI Captive seated 5.79 g 23mm | Refs.
8 CONTI Captive seated 3.49g 21mm 7 Refs.
as last.
9 CONT; T inl. field Captive seated 5.19 g 22 mm
) T 79; R—; RIC 233/80v (captive kneeling);
LRBC 2166
AE 4. VOT V in wreath. T 131 (CONS); R 128-30 (CONA,
A, S).
Obv. DNARCADIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VOT/V in wreath; beneath, mm.
10 CONT 1.17g 14mm {7 T-;R-; RIC 229/
62(b)1, LRBC 2161
11 CONT 0.89 g 13mm \ Same refs. as last.
Nicomedia
AE 2. Same inscrs. and types as 5-9, but Nicomedia mm.
12 *SMNB Captive kneeling 4.74 g 22mm f
T 81; R-—; RIC 257/26.5; LRBC 2377
13. %*SMNAs Captive kneeling 4.92 g 23mm 17
T—-; R 26; RIC 257/26.7; LRBC 2377: but all with-
out final pellet.
14 +SMNI, T inr. field Captive seated 5.31 g 20
mm | T 82; R—; RIC 260/41.5 var. (captive
kneeling); LRBC 2392 var. (T in 1. field).
AE 4. Same inscrs. and types as 10-11, but Nicomedia mm.
15 SMNA 147g 14mm | T-;R-; RIC 259/
37(c)1; LRBC 2385
Cyzicus
AE 2. Same inscrs. and types as 5—9, but with captive some-
times standing, and Cyzicus mm.
16 SMKA Captive kneeling Rev.: GLORIARO[ 5.15
g 21mm | T-;R-; RIC 243/15; LRBC 2547
17 SMKA Captive kneeling 4.80 g 24mm {7 Same
refs. as last.
18 SMKA Captive standing 5.19g 24mm | T-;
R-; RIC—; LRBC-
AE 4. Same inscrs. and types as 10-11, but Cyzicus mm.
19 SMKA 1.23g 13mm \ T-;R-; RIC 244/
20(d)1; LRBC 2562
20 SMKA 1.23 g 15mm f Same refs. as last.
as last. 21 SMKB 1.29g 14mm \ T-; R131; RIC 244/
20(d)2; LRBC 2562
1. 68.15; Vinchon 10.x.1968 10. 48.17.1030; Peirce, from Raymond 1928 17. 56.13.11; Grierson, from Sydenham sale,
2. 57.4.41; Friend 1957 11. 71.28.1; Seaby 5.v.1971 lot 869.B
3. 71.5; Franceschi 15.i.1971 12. 56.13.14; Grierson 1956, from Baldwin 16. 18. 56.13.10; prov. as last
4. Whittemore vi. 1945 19. 47.2.4; Shaw 1947
5. 56.13.1; Grierson 1956, from Sydenham sale, 13. 48.17.1057; Peirce 20. 48.17.1051; Peirce
lot 869.B 14. 56.13.15; Grierson 1956, from Lawrence 21. 48.17.1052; Peirce
6. 56.13.3; prov. as last sale 2, lot 988
7. 56.13.2; prov. as last 15. 48.17.1062; Peirce, from Andronikos
8. Whittemore x.1928
9. 56.13.4; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2, lot 16. 48.17.1035; Peirce, from Schulman xi.
988 1932, ex “English coll.” from Lincoln
PLATE l|
ARCADIUS (1)
Coinage of 383—6 (cont.)
Cyzicus (cont.)
AE 4 (cont.) VOT V in wreath. As 19 ff.
22
23
24
25
26
27
SMKA 0.99 g
244/20(d)4; LRBC 2562
SMKA 1.39 g 14mm | Refs. as last.
SMKA Obv.: DNARCAD[ JAVC 1.10 g 15 mm
\_ Refs. as last.
SMKA Obv.: JCADIVSPFAVC 1.02 g 15mm /
Refs. as last.
SMK[ Obv.: DNARCADIVSPF{ 1.27 g 13 mm
? RIC 244/20(d); LRBC 2562
SMK[ 0.49¢g 13mm | Refs. as last.
Heraclea
14mm | T 128-9; R 132; RIC
ARCADIUS (2)
34
AE 4.
35
AE 2.
36
37
AE 2. Emperor standing, seated or kneeling captive in I.
field. As 5 ff, but Heraclea mm.
28
29
30
31
32
33
SMHA Captive seated 5.78 g 24mm \ T-;
R 23; RIC 195/12.1; LRBC 1955
SMHA,; pellet in r. field Captive kneeling 5.40 g
38
39
26mm \ Cf. refs. above (all have captive seated,
and no pellet).
SMHA, pellet in r. field Captive kneeling 4.49 g
24mm J Refs. as last.
SMHB Captive seated Rev.: GLORI[ JMAN-
ORVM 5.19g 23mm | T-; R 24; RIC 195/
12.2; LRBC 1955
SMHB; T in |. field Captive seated 4.68 g 22
mm \ T-;R-; RIC 197/22.1; LRBC 1972
SMHB,; T in I. field Captive seated 4.49 g 23
mm f Refs. as last.
40
41
42
43
SMHB*, T in |. field Captive seated.
Obv.: DNARC[ JIVSPFAVC 5.42 g (struck on bro-
ken flan) 22mm | T-;R-; RIC 197/22.2;
LRBC 1973
As 22 ff, but Heraclea mm.
SMHA 1.08g 13mm f T 130; R 133; RIC
196/18(b)1; LRBC 1964
Antioch
As 28 ff, but Antioch mm.; rosette or pearl diadem.
%ANTS Captive kneeling, w. very conspicuous
beard. Rosette diadem 4.81 g 22mm \ T-;R
21 var. (pearl diadem); RIC 284/41(b)4; LRBC
2728
%ANTS Captive kneeling Rosette diadem 3.49 g
22mm \ Refs. as last.
#ANTS; cross in |. field Captive kneeling Pearl
diadem 6.34 g 24mm | T 84; R-; RIC 283/
41(a)2; LRBC 2725 (as corrected)
* ANTS; cross in |. field Captive kneeling Pearl
diadem 5.83 g 22mm \®% Refs. as last.
* ANTS; cross in |. field Captive kneeling Pearl
diadem 5.73 g 23mm \ Refs. as last.
* ANTS; cross in l. field Captive kneeling Rosette
diadem 4.74 g 22mm \ T 84; R-; RIC 284/
41(b)6; LRBC —
* ANTS; cross in I. field Captive kneeling Rosette
diadem 5.92 g 22mm \% Refs. as last.
* ANTS; cross in I. field, T in r. field Captive
kneeling Rosette diadem 5.35g 21mm \ T-;
R—-; RIC 291/60.2; LRBC 2753 var. (T in I. field,
cross in r. field).
. Whittemore
. 48.17.1064; Peirce, from Platt 4.vi.1926
xi. 1932; olim Lincoln
. 48.17.1054; Peirce 32. 58.191.53; Istanbul bazaar 39. 48.17.1071; prov. as last
. 71,28.2; Seaby 5.v.1971 33. Whittemore 40. 70.29.1; Monmouth Stamp & Coin Shop
. 71.28.3; prov. as last 34. 56.13.18; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2, (Red Bank, N.J.) 25.vii.1970
. 48.17.1055; Peirce lot 988 41. 56.13.27; Grierson, from Sydenham sale,
. 48.17.1053; Peirce 35. 56.13.20; Grierson, from Sydenham sale, lot 869.B
. Whittemore lot 869.B 42. 48.17.1072; Peirce, from Ciani x.1925
. 48.17.1063; Peirce, from Andronikos 36. 56.13.26; prov. as last 43. 48.17.1073; Peirce
x.1928 37. Whittemore
. 48.17.1056; Peirce, from Ciani x.1925 38. 48.17.1070; Peirce, from Schulman
PLATE 2
ARCADIUS (2)
ARCADIUS (3)
Coinage of 383—6 (cont.)
Antioch (cont.)
AE 4. VOT X MVLT XxX in wreath, the vota being those
of Valentinian II.
Obv. DNARCADIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VOT/X/MVLT/XX in wreath; beneath, mm.
44 ANI 1.47g 14mm \ T-;R--; RIC 292/
65(c)2; LRBC 2743
45 ANA Obv. inscr.: DNARCADIVSPF[ 1.59 g 11
mm N T 134; R—; RIC 292/65(c)3; LRBC 2743
46 ANS 140g 12mm | T-;R-; RIC 292/
65(c)4; LRBC 2743
Alexandria
AE 2. Emperor standing, seated or kneeling captive in I.
field. Type as 5 ff, but w. Alexandria mm.
47 ALEA;T in|. field Captive kneeling Rev. inscr.:
JORAIRO MANORVM (sic) 4.49 g 21mm |
T 86 var.; R 20 var.; RIC — (cf. 300/7); LRBC 2886
var.
AE 4. VOT X MVLT XX in wreath. Type as 44—6, but nor-
mally a slight gap in the obv. inscr. (AD—IV), and Alex-
andria mm.
48 ALET 1.25g 13mm \ T-;R-; RIC 302/
19(d) var.; LRBC 2892
49 ALEA 142g 13mm \ T-
19(d)2; LRBC 2892
50 ALEA 1.32g 13mm \ Refs. as last.
51 ALEA Obv.: JCAD IVSIPAVC (sic) 1.12 g 12
mm | Refs. as last.
52 ALEA Obv.: JIVSPRAVC (sic) 1.49 g 13mm \
Refs. as last.
; R 136; RIC 302/
Uncertain Mints
AE 4. As last, but unbroken obv. inscr.; mm. illegible.
53 1.17g 12mm N\
AE 4. VOT V in wreath. Type as 10 ff, but mm. not clear.
54 (Cyzicus?) 156g 15mm \
55 (Heraclea?) 1.00g 13mm \
56 149g 14mm f
“Western” Coinages, 383-6
Thessalonica
AE 2. Emperor and Victory in ship. This is the type used
for the coins of Valentinian II (off. A) and Theodosius II
(off. B and A), but since the coins bear the gamma officina
numeral, they are not mules but the product of incorrectly
prepared dies. No such errors are recorded in RIC or
LRBC.
Obv. DNARCAD IVSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem), w.
spear and shield; above, Manus Dei holding crown.
Rev. GLORIARO MANORVM Emperor tol. on galley,
looking r. and raising r. hand; to r., Victory seated at helm.
In ex., *TES and off. numeral.
57 ¢*TEST Wreath in |. field 6.55 g 22mm \
58 ¢*TESI Wreath inl. field 4.91 g 23mm \
AE 2. Emperor standing, w. seated captive in I. field. Type
as 5 ff, but w. TES and off. numeral (always I’ for Arcadius).
T 83; R 28; RIC 183/45a; LRBC 1838 (notes).
59 TEST 5.53 g 22mm /
60 TESTI 5.65 g 24mm f
Solidus, AV. Two emperors seated facing. T—; R—; RIC
185/55e
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTOR IAAVGG ‘Two emperors, nimbate,
seated facing, one holding mappa-and the two together
holding globe. Above, Victory w. wings outspread; below, a
palm branch. In ex., COM
61 440g 21mm 7
AE 3. Emperor holding labarum and dragging captive r.
Obv. DNARCAD IVSPFAVC (or DI —- VS break). Bust
r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. GLORIARO MANORVM Emperor holding la-
barum in |. hand and dragging captive r. In ex., mm.
62 TES Obv. inscr. break AD-IV 2.35 g 17 mm
? cf. T 95 ([ in r. field); R-—; RIC 186/60(c)2;
LRBC 1848
AE 4. Two Victories. T-—; R—; RIC 187/63c; LRBC 1872
Obv. DNARCADIVSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORIAAVC Two Victories facing each other,
each holding wreath; between them, pellet. In ex., TEST
63 mm. off flan Obv. inscr.: DNARCA[ Rev.:
VICTO[ 1.38 g 12mm /Y
44. 71.28.7; Seaby 5.v.1971 52. Whittemore 59. 56.13.22; Grierson, from Sydenham sale,
45. 71.28.8; prov. as last 53. 71.1; Franceschi 5.i.1971 lot 869.B
46. 71.28.9; prov. as last 54. 48.17.1107; Peirce 60. 56.13.23; prov. as last
47. 56.13.31; Grierson 1956, from Sydenham 55. Whittemore Loan 26 61. 56.6.18; Grierson 1956, from Spink
sale, lot 869.B 56. Whittemore 10.11.1945
48. 71.28.10; Seaby 5.v.1971 57. 56.13.21; Grierson 1956, from Sydenham 62. 48.17.1093; Peirce, from Schulman
49. 71.28.13; prov. as last sale, lot 869.B xi.1932, olim Lincoln
50. 71.28.12; prov. as last 58. 48.17.1092; Peirce, from Schulman 63. 56.13.24; Grierson 1956, from Baldwin
51. 71.28.11; prov. as last xi. 1932, olim Lincoln 10.x.1952, ex Lawrence coll.
PLATE 3
ARCADIUS (3)
ARCADIUS (3) cont.
AE 4. Camp gate. T 103; R 69; RIC 187/62(c)3; LRBC 1866
Obv. DNARCADIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. GLORIAREI PVBLICE Camp gate. In I. field, I;
in ex., TES
64 mm. mostly off flan Obv. inscr.: JCADIVSPFAVC
Rev.: GLORIARE][ 1.08 g 1l mm \
65 mm.: JE[ Obv. inscr.: DNARCA[ Rev. illegible
0.93 g 12mm \
Siscia
AE 3. As 62, but w. SIS preceded by officina numeral.
66 BSISC Obv. inscr. break DI- VS 2.92 g 18 mm
Y T-;R-; RIC 154/38(c)2; LRBC 1571
AE 4. Victory advancing 1.
Obv. DNARCADIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Victory advancing I., holding
wreath and palm; in ex., mm.
67 ASIS 159g 13mm | T 126; R-; RIC 155/
39(c)1; LRBC 1578
Aquileia
Siliqua, AR. Roma seated facing. T 58; R—; RIC 103/41c
64. 71.28.4; Seaby 5.v.1971
65. 48.17.1031; Peirce, from Andronikos
66. 56.13.36; Grierson 1956, from Baldwin
10.x.1952; ex Lawrence coll.
67. 48.17.1109; Peirce
68. 62.13; Seaby 19.vi.1962 71. 56.13.37; Grierson, from Glendining sale
x.1928 69. 71.37.2; MMAG Basel 15.vi.1971
Obv. DNARCA DI VSPFAVU Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VIRTVSRO MANORVM Roma seated facing,
looking |., holding globe in r. hand and inverted spear in
l. In ex., AQPS
68 159g 17mm |
AE 3. As 62, but w. SMAQ and officina numeral. T 96; R — ;
RIC 104/45(c)1; LRBC 1086
69 SMAQP Obv. inscr. break DI- VS 2.47 g 17
mm
Milan
Solidus, AV. As 61, but older bust and mm. MD in field.
T 36; R—; RIC 78/8c; UB pl. 1v.33 (but younger bust).
70 437g 20mm f
Siliqua, AR. 387. VOT V MVLT X in wreath. T 68; R-;
RIC 79/13; UB pl. 11.23. Despite the older bust, this is dated
by the vota inscription.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VOT/V/MVLT/X in wreath; beneath, MDPS
71 165g 17mm |
70. 48.17.1096; Peirce
7.111.1945, lot 230
ARCADIUS (4)
Consular Coins of January 385
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. Arcadius seated facing. T-—; R-; RIC -
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Consular bust I., holding
mappa in r. hand and eagle-topped scepter in I.
Rev. GLORIARO MANORVM Arcadius nimbate, in
consular robes, seated facing, raising r. hand and holding
eagle-topped scepter in |. In field |., Christogram; in ex.,
CONOB
72 446g 21mm 7
Siliqua, AR. Types and inscrs. as on the solidus, but CONS»
as mm. and no Christogram in field. Unique? T-—; R—-;
RIC -
73° =61.98g 17mm f
Thessalonica
AE 3. Camp gate. T—; R—; RIC 186/59(c)2; LRBC 1863
Obv. DNARCADIVSPFAVC Consular bust I, as on
72-3
Rev. GLORIAREI PVBLICE Camp gate, Christogram
above.
74 ‘TES,T inl. field. 3.09g 15mm f
Constantinople
Siliqua, AR. VOT X MVLT XX. T 75; R—; RIC 232/77e.
This has a much younger bust than 157-60, with the same
inscription, but the pellet after CONS characterizes other
siliquae of 385 (RIC 225/51, 232/77, and 73) and the vota
here are those of Valentinian II.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VOT/X/MVLT/XX in wreath; beneath, CONS»
75 149g 17mm \
Eastern Coins of Arcadius’ Quinquennalia, 387
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. Constantinopolis seated facing, holding in-
scribed shield. T 21—5
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (rosette diadem).
Rev. CONCORDI AAVCCC (or CCCC) and officina nu-
meral. Constantinopolis seated facing, looking r., holding
scepter and shield with VOT/V/MVL/X, which rests on pil-
lar, r. foot on prow. In ex., CONOB
(a) With CCCC (recognizing Maximus) T 25; R—; RIC
225/47d
76 Off.6 449g 21mm |
(b) With CCC T 23; R 7; RIC 231/70(c)3
77 =— Off. NX 4.46 g¢ 21mm |
78 Off. \ 4.45 ¢ 20mm |
Semissis, AV. Victory w. shield. Unique? Cf. T 41 and RIC
225/50c for type, but these 1 scripulum pieces have cross
and not Christogram in the field.
Obv. As last, but pearl diadem.
Rev. VICTORIAAVCVSTORVM Victory seated r., in-
scribing shield w. VOT/V/MVL/X. In r. field, Christogram;
in ex., CONOB
79 221g 17mm | Nose slightly damaged.
Coinage of 387-392
(a) Eastern Coinage
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. Constantinopolis seated facing (as on 1—4, but
larger bust on obv.); CCC. T 19 (w. H).
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (rosette or pearl
diadem).
Rev. CONCORDI AAVCCC and officina numeral.
Constantinopolis seated facing, looking r., w. long scepter
in r. hand and globe in lI., r. foot on prow. In ex., CONOB
80 Off. S Rosette diadem 4.33 g 21mm 7 T-;
R—-; cf. RIC 223/45e (pearl diadem).
81 Off. 0 pearl diadem 4.39 g 21mm ff T-;
R 3; RIC 223/45(e)2
Tremissis, AV. 388 and later. Victory advancing r. T 42;
R 11; RIC 232/75c
This denomination is without a vota legend, but it is not
yet “regular” currency and Arcadius’ ones probably started
in or soon after 388. The smaller module of 83 implies that
it is later, but since there is no star in the field it must be
earlier than 403.
Obv. As last.
Rev. VICTORIA AVCVSTORVM Victory advancing
r., holding wreath and globus cruciger. In ex., CONOB
82 149g 15mm \
83 149g 14mm |
AE 2. Probably 386 —. Emperor spurning captive.
Obv. DNARCADIVSPFAVCVSTVS Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. VIRTVSE XERCITI Emperor standing r., hold-
ing labarum and globe, spurning captive w. |. foot. In 1.
field, there may be a cross, Christogram or star; in ex., mm.
(a) Cross in l. field
84 CONSB (B badly formed) 2.49 g 24mm |
T-; R-; cf. RIC 223/83(c)1; LRBC 2173
85 CONSID 4.15 g 23mm 7 T-;R-; RIC 233/
83(c)l; LRBC 2173
86 CONSA 4.67 g 22mm | T 112; R 106; cf. RIC
233/83(c)1; LRBC 2173
72. 62.5; Hess-Bank Leu sale 19, 12.iv.1962, 78. 48.17.1011; Peirce, from SLCC vi.1929 83. Whittemore
lot 532 79. 58.4; Spink 21.1.1958 84. Whittemore
73. 74.24; Sternberg sale 30.xi.1974, lot 666 80. Whittemore Loan 24 85. 48.17.1033; Peirce, from Andronikos x.
74. 87.1; Baldwin 6.ii.1987 81. 56.6.19; from Platt Hall sale 2, lot 2185; 1928
75. Whittemore
from Lincoln 9.iv.1918
86. 56.13.6; Grierson, from Sydenham sale, lot
76. Whittemore 82. 57.16; “Foreign Ambassador” sale, lot 460 869.B
77. 48.17.1010; Peirce, from Raymond 11.1930
PLATE 4
ARCADIUS (4)
ES y iy) )
ARCADIUS (4) cont.
(b) Christogram in I. field 93
87 CONSB Obv. inscr.: JRCADIVSPFAVCVSTVS ;
Rev.: V[ JE XERCITI 2.49 g 21mm 7 T-; 94
R-; cf. RIC 233/83(c)2; LRBC 2179
88 CONSID 5.31 g 21mm | T 111; R105; RIC 95
233/83(c)2; LRBC 2179 96
89 CONSTI 4.78 g 23mm / Refs. as last.
90 CONSTI 3.49 g 22mm f Refs. as last. 97
91 CONSA 3.69g 23mm ¥ T-;R-; cf. RIC
233/83(c)2; LRBC 2179
98
AE 4. Victory dragging captive I.
Obv. DNARCADIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem). 99
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICAE Victory advancing l., tro- 100
phy on shoulder, dragging captive. In I. field, Christogram;
in ex., mm.
92
869.B
. 48.17.1034; Peirce
. Whittemore
. 48.17.1019; Peirce
. 71.28.17; Seaby 5.v.1971
93.
95.
96.
CONS[A or ?B] Obv.: DNARCADIVSP[ 0.92 g
14mm 7? Refs. as last.
CONSA Obv.: DNARCADIVSPF[ Rev.:
SALVSREI[ 1.49 g 12mm \ Refs. as last.
CONSA 1.44g 13mm f Refs. as last.
CONSA Obv.: JCADIVSPFAVC 1.49 g 14mm
t Refs. as last.
CONSB Obv.: JCADIVSPFAVC Rev.: JRE-
IPVBLICAE 1.27g 13mm | T-;R-; RIC
234/86(c)2; LRBC 2185
CONSB Rev.: SALVSREI[ JLICAE 1.07 g 13
mm | Refs. as last.
CONSB 1.49g 14mm f Refs. as last.
CONSTI Rev.: SALVSREI[ JE 1.65 g 12 mm
T 105; R 95; RIC 234/86(c)3; LRBC 2185
56.13.9; Grierson, from Baldwin 10.x. 97. 71.28.18; Seaby 5.v.1971
1952, ex Lawrence coll.
JONSA 1.04 ¢g 13mm | T-;R--; RIC 234/
86(c)1; LRBC 2185
. Whittemore
. 56.13.5; Grierson, from Sydenham sale, lot
. Whittemore
98. 69.36.1; Mango 12.ix.1969
99. Whittemore
56.13.8; Grierson, from Sydenham sale, lot 100. 71.28.20; Seaby 5.v.1971
869.B
Whittemore
ARCADIUS (5)
Coinage of 387-392 (cont.)
Constantinople (cont.)
AE 4. Victory dragging captive |. (as 92 ff).
101 JONSIP 1.66g 13mm 7 Refs. as last.
102 jJONSI Obv.: ]}VSPFAVC Rev.: ]VSREI PVBLI-
CAE 1.16g 13mm J Refs. as last.
103 CONSID 1.23 g 14mm \®% Refs. as last.
104 CONSI Rev.: SALVSREI[ 1.49 g 14mm f
Refs. as last.
105 CONSA Rev.: SALV[ JBLICAE 1.57 g 12 mm
L T-; R96; RIC 234/86(c)4; LRBC 2185
106 CONSA Obv.: DNARCADIV[ Rev.: SALVSREI
[]JCAE 147g 14mm | Refs. as last.
107 CON[ Obv. inscr. broken (DI - VS). Rev. very
crude. The C and N of the mm. are not clear
and the coin could be one of Aquileia, w. AQ(S?],
which would explain the broken obv. inscr. 1.49
g 13mm 7 RIC 234/86c; LRBC 2185
108 CON[ 1.49g 13mm 7 Refs. as last.
109 CON[ Rev.: SALVSREI[ and traces of letters.
147g 13mm \% Refs. as last.
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. Constantinopolis seated facing, as on | ff, but
different throne. T 20; R-; RIC 188/64d
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. CONCORDI AAVGGG Constantinopolis seated
facing (throne w. lions’ heads), looking r., holding long
scepter and globe, r. foot on prow. In ex., COMOB
110 444g 21mm \
111 447g 21mm \
AE 4. As 101 ff above, but Thessalonica mm.
112 TEST 1.38g 14mm \ T-;R-; RIC 188/
65c; LRBC 1875
Nicomedia
AE 2. As 84-91, but DNARCADIVSPFAVC, nothing in
rev. |. field, and Nicomedia mm.
113. SMNI 4.19g 24mm Z T-;R111; RIC 261/
44(c)2; LRBC 2395
AE 4. As 101 ff above, but sometimes without Christogram
in |. field; Nicomedia mm.
114 SMNA (?) No Christogram Rev.: SALVSREI
[JCAE 149g 13mm \ T-; R102; RIC 262/
45(c)l; LRBC 2429
115 SMNB No Christogram 1.23g 13mm | T-;
R—; RIC 262/45(c) var.; LRBC 2429
116 SMNI Christogram Rev.: SALVSREI P[ JAE
0.88¢g 13mm “ T-;R-; RIC 262/45(c)3;
LRBC 2408
Cyzicus
AE 2. As 84-91, but Cyzicus mm. and no symbol in field.
117 SMKA 4.46¢ 23mm | T-; R109; RIC 245/
25(c)3; LRBC 2566
118 SMKA 5.49 g 22mm | Refs. as last.
AE 4. As 101 ff, with Christogram in I. field, but A’s in the
inscriptions have the form H; Cyzicus mm.
119 SMKA Obv.: HRCHDIVSPF[ Rev.: SHLVSREI
[JE 0.87 ¢g 13mm | T-; R97; RIC 246/
26(c)1; LRBC 2578
120 SMKA 0.49 g 13mm f Refs. as last.
121 SMKA (or A) 0.49¢ 13mm f Refs. as last.
122 SMKB Rev.: SHLVSR[ 0.95g 12mm | T-;
R—; RIC 246/26(c)2; LRBC 2578
123 SMKI 1.10g 13mm f T 107; R 98; RIC 246/
26(c)3; LRBC 2578
124 SMKI 1.32 g 15mm / Refs. as last.
125 SMKI 1.49g 13mm \% Refs. as last.
126 SMKI° Obv.: JHDIVSPFHVC Rev.: ]PVBLI-
CAE 0.49g 15mm | Refs. as last.
127 SMK[ Obv.: DN[ JRCH 1.31 g 13mm |
128 SMK{ 0.93g 13mm |
Heraclea
AE 2. As 84-91, but star in rev. |. field, and Heraclea mm.
129 °*SMHB 5.32 g 23mm 7 T 117; R-; RIC 197/
24(c)3; LRBC 1981
130 *SMHB 4.45 g 22mm 7 Refs. as last.
AE 4. As 101 ff, but no Christogram; Heraclea mm.
131 SMHA Obv.: DNARCADIVSP[ Rev.: SALVS
[ JPVBLICA (sic) 1.28 g 13mm / T-; R99;
RIC 198/26(c)1; LRBC 1985
132 JMHA Obv.: JNARCADIVSPFA[ Rev.: JALVSRE
[ JPVBLICAE 1.18 g 13mm \ Refs. as last.
101. 48.17.1027; Peirce, from Spink 1.vi.1929 113. 48.17.1058; Peirce 122. 71.28.21; Seaby 5.v.1971
102. 71.28.19; Seaby 5.v.1971 114. Whittemore 123. 56.13.13; Grierson, from Sydenham sale,
103. Whittemore Loan 25 115. 48.17.1061; Peirce, from Andronikos lot 869.B
104. Whittemore x.1928 124. 48.17.1050; Peirce, from Ciani xi.1925
105. 48.17.1028; Peirce, from Schulman xi. 116. 56.13.16; Grierson, from Baldwin 10.x. 125. Whittemore
1932, olim Lincoln 1952, ex Lawrence coll. 126. Whittemore
106. 48.17.1029; Peirce 117. 48.17.1037; Peirce, from Andronikos x. 127. 48.17.111; Peirce, from R(aymond?) 1928
107. Whittemore 1928 128. 58.191.59; Istanbul bazaar 31.xi.1958
108. Whittemore 118. Whittemore 129. 48.17.1065; Peirce, from Schulman xi.
109. Whittemore 119. 56.13.12; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2, 1932; olim Lincoln
110. Whittemore Loan 23 lot 988 130. 48.17.1066; Peirce
111. Whittemore Loan 22 120. Whittemore 131. 48.17.1069; Peirce
112. 48.17.1094; Peirce 121. Whittemore 132. 71.28.15; Seaby 5.v.1971
ARCADIUS (5) PLATE 5
102
ARCADIUS (6)
Coinage of 387—92 (cont.)
Heraclea (cont.)
AE 4. Victory dragging captive |. (cont.).
133 JHA (2) Obv.: JDIVSPFAVC Rev.: ]PVBLICAE
149g 13mm | Refs. as last.
134 SMNI Rev.: SALVSREI[ 1.17 g 12mm \ T-
; R.101; RIC 198/26(c)3; LRBC 1985
135 SMNI Rev.: SALVS[ 1.52 g 14mm < Refs. as
last.
136 SMNA Obv.: DNARCADI[ Rev. SALVS[ 1.41 g
13mm | T-;R-; RIC 198/26(c)4; LRBC
1985
Antioch
AE 2. As 84-91, but nothing in rev. |. field, and Antioch
mm.
137 ANTB 3.74g 22mm \ Obv. damaged I. of
head. T—; R—; RIC 291/63(e) var.; LRBC 2758
138 ANTS 4.64 g 22mm \ T 115; R108; RIC
291/63e; LRBC 2758
AE 4. As 133 ff, but cross or Christogram in I. field; Antioch
mm.
Ap Cross; ANTT T—; R—-; RIC 293/67(d)4; LRBC 2766
Obv.: JNARCADIVSPFAVC Rev.: SALVSRE
{[ JPVBLICAE 1.29g 12mm \
140 103g 12mm \
141 Rev.: SALVSREI[ 0.92 g 13mm \
142 Mm. illegible Obv.: JARCADIVSPFAV[ Rev.:
JPVBLICA[ 1.66g 13mm \
(b) Christogram; ANTT T —; R 92; RIC 293/67(d)2;
LRBC 2771
152g 13mm \
Rev.: SALVSREI[ JLICAE 0.99 g 12mm f
143
144
Alexandria
AE 2. As 137—8, but mm. ALET. T 114; R 107; RIC 302/
18d; LRBC 2896
145 591g 22mm f
146 5.79g 22mm f
147 5.77g 23mm |
AE 4. As 133 ff, but pellet in |. field; Alexandria mm.
Uncertain Mints
AE 4. As last, but w. Christogram in I. field; mm. illegible
or off flan.
150 Rev.: JLVSREI PVBLICAE 1.49g 13mm \
151 149g 12mm f
152 Obv.: JRCADIVSPFAVC Rev.: SALVSREI[ JBLI-
CAE 0.49 g 13 mm
153 Christogram present? Obv.: JRCADIVSPFAVC
Rev. illegible 149g 13mm f
154 Christogram present? Obv.: JRCADIVSPFAVC
Rev. illegible 0.49 g 12mm 7
Coinage of 392-395
Constantinople
Solidus, AV (392). Constantinopolis seated facing, holding
inscribed shield. T 27
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl or rosette
diadem).
Rev. CONCORDI AAVCCC and officina numeral. Con-
stantinopolis seated facing, looking r., holding scepter and
shield inscribed VOT/X/MVLT/XV which rests on pillar, r.
foot on prow. In ex., CONOB
155 Off. H Pearl diadem 4.42 ¢ 21mm | T27
var. (rosette); R—; RIC 231/71c var.
156 Off. S Rosette diadem 3.86 g 20mm \% Obv.
r. field: ?grafhto B T-—; R-; RIC 231/71(d)4
Siliqua, AR. VOT X MVLT XX. T—-; R56; RIC 235/87b
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem)
Rev. VOT/X/MVLT/XX in wreath; beneath, CONS
157 1.83 g 18mm f
158 2.06g 18mm |
159 1.98 g (pierced) 16mm |
160 = Rev.: TOV/X/MVLT/XX 2.01 g 17mm f
Solidus, AV (393-5). Emperor spurning captive; SM in rev.
field. On the mint attribution, see above, pp. 119-20. T
32-5
Obv. As last.
Rev. VICTOR IAAVCCC and officina numeral. Em-
peror standing r., holding labarum in r. hand hand and
globe surmounted by Victory in 1, spurning captive w. l.
foot. In field, SM; in ex., COMOB
161 Off. S Rosette diadem 4.45g 20mm | T-;
R-—; RIC 161/14c (as Sirmium)
162 Off. 0 (breaks RI — A) Pearl diadem 4.49 g 20
mm “ T-—; R—-; RIC 162/15(b)8 (as Sirmium)
48.17.1082; Peirce, from Fej ... (un-
148 ALEA Obv.: JARC[ JDIVSD{ (sic). Rev.:
SALVS[ 1.20g 1lmm Y¥ T—-; R90; RIC 303/
20(c)3; LRBC 2908
149 ALEA(?) 151g 12mm f Refs. as last.
133. Whittemore 143.
134. 56.13.19; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2, traced) vi.1927
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
lot 988
71.37.3; Grierson gift 19.vii.1971, from
MMAG Basel 15.vi.1971
71.28.16; Seaby 5.v.1971
48.17.1075; Peirce, from Schulman xi.
1932; olim Lincoln
48.17.1074; Peirce
48.17.1083; Peirce
71.28.22; Seaby 5.v.1971
71.28.23; prov. as last
48.17.1112; Peirce, from SLCC
144.
145.
146.
147.
148.
149.
150-
71.28.24; Seaby 5.v.1971
56.13.32; Grierson, from Sydenham sale,
lot 869.B
48.17.1085; Peirce, from SLCC vii.1928
56.13.33; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2,
lot 988
56.13.34; Grierson, from Baldwin 15.x.
1952, ex Lawrence coll.
56.13.35; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2,
lot 988
154. Whittemore
155.
156.
157.
158.
. 60.125.1301; Schindler 24.1.1960
160.
161.
162.
71.6; Franceschi 15.i.1971
71.7; prov. as last
48.17.1016; Peirce, from Ratto sale 9.xii.
1930, lot 56
48.17.1018; Peirce
48.17.1017; Peirce, from Andronikos x.
1928
60.118; MMAG Basel 11.xi.1960
Whittemore
ARCADIUS (6) PLATE 6
ARCADIUS (7)
Coinage of 392-5 (cont.)
Constantinople (cont.)
Light miliarense, AR. Emperor standing facing. T 47; R-;
RIC 234/85b
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust I. (pearl diadem).
Rev. GLORIA ROMANORVM_ Emperor, nimbate,
standing facing, looking 1., raising r. hand and holding
globe in |. In ex., CON
163 438g 22mm |
AE 3. Emperor on horseback. T — ; R — ; RIC 236/89(b) var.
(CONS); LRBC 2190
Obv. As last.
Rev. GLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor on horseback
r., raising r. hand. In ex., mm.
164 CONSTI Obv.: DNARCADI[ JPFAVC Rev.: JRO-
MANORVM 1.57 g 17mm 7
165 CONS(I?) 1.97 g 15mm /7
Nicomedia
AE 2. Emperor standing w. labarum and globe.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. GLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor standing fac-
ing, looking r., holding labarum and globe. In ex., mm.
166 SMNB 4.44g 23mm / T-; R80; RIC 263/
46(b)2; LRBC 2423
167 SMNB 5.49 g 23mm f Refs. as last.
Cyzicus
AE 2. As 166-7, but A’s in the inscriptions have the form
H; Cyzicus mm.
168 SMKA 4.90 g 21mm /7 T-; R75; RIC 246/
27(b)1; LRBC 2572
169 SMKA 6.17 g 22mm Y Refs. as last.
170 SMKA 5.49 g 21mm | Refs. as last.
171 SMKB 6.33 g 21mm f T 92; R76; RIC 246/
27(b)2; LRBC 2572
172 SMKI 4.82 g 22 mm
27(b)3; LRBC 2572
173. SMKI Rev.: GLORIH[ JMHNORVM 4.49 g 21
mm | Refs. as last.
t T-;R77; RIC 246/
AE 3. Emperor on horseback (as 164-5). The A’s in the
inscriptions have the form H.
Obv. DNHRCHDI VSPFHVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. GLORIH ROMHNORVM Emperor on horseback
r., raising r. hand. In ex., mm.
174 SMKA 1.73 g 15mm f T-; R87; RIC 247/
29(b)1; LRBC 2575
175 SMKA (or B) 2.49g 16mm f RIC 247/29(b);
LRBC 2575
Heraclea
AE 2. As 166 ff; Heraclea mm.
176 SMHA 5.33 g 20mm \ T-;R-; RIC 199/
97(b)1; LRBC 1987
177. SMHA 5.31 g 22mm \ Refs. as last.
178 SMHB 4.49 g (plugged) 21 mm | T-; R79;
RIC 199/27(b)2; LRBC 1987
Antioch
AE 2. As 166 ff, but pearl or rosette diadem; Antioch mm.
179 ANTB Pearl diadem 5.22 g 21mm \ T 90;
R 72; RIC 294/68(c)2; LRBC 2781
180 ANTB Pearl diadem Double-striking in part of
rev. inscr. 3.49 g 22mm \ Refs. as last.
181 ANTB Rosette diadem 5.52 g 20mm \ T 90;
R 72; RIC 294/68(d)1; LRBC 2782
AE 3. As 164-5; Antioch mm.
182 ANTB Obv.: JDI VSPFAVC 2.18 g 14mm \
T 100; R 85; RIC 294/69(c)1; LRBC 2787
183 ANTB Obv.: DNARCADI VSPFA[ Rev.: GLO-
RIA[ JANORVM 1.40 g 14mm \N Refs. as
last.
184 ANT 2.49g 17mm — T-; R-; RIC 294/
69(c)2; LRBC 2787
Alexandria
AE 2. As 166 ff, but unbroken obv. inscr.; Alexandria mm.
185 ALEB 5.26¢g 20mm \ T-; R71; RIC 304/
21(b)2; LRBC 2911
Uncertain Mints
AE 2. As 166 ff; mm. illegible, but unbroken obv. inscr.
suggests Alexandria.
186 Obv.: JRCADIV[ 5.49g 19mm \
AE 3. As 174-5, but mm. off flan.
187 Obv.: DNARCAD[ JSPFAVC Rev.: JA ROMA-
NORVM 1.84g 14mm |
163. 70.7; Spink 20.iii.1970 172. 48.17.1040; Peirce, from Schulman 181. 48.17.1076; Peirce, from Ciani x.1925
164. 48.17.1025; Peirce, from Andronikos xi. 1928; olim Lincoln 182. 56.13.28; Grierson, from Messenger sale,
x.1928 173. Whittemore lot 242
165. 48.17.1026; Peirce 174. 48.17.1046; Peirce 183. 56.13.29; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2,
166. 48.17.1059; Peirce 175. Whittemore lot 988
167. Whittemore 176. 48.17.1067; Peirce, from Andronikos x. 184. Whittemore
168. 48.17.1038; Peirce 1928 185. 48.17.1087; Peirce, from Schulman
169. 48.17.1039; Peirce, from Schulman 177. 48.17.1068; Peirce xi. 1928, olim Lincoln
xi.1928; olim Lincoln 178. Whittemore 186. Whittemore
170. Whittemore 179. 48.17.1077; Peirce 187. 71.28.6; Seaby 5.v.1971
171. 48.17.1042; Peirce 180. Whittemore
PLATE 7
ARCADIUS (7)
187
186
185
183
82
]
181
ARCADIUS (8)
Coinage of 392—5 (cont.)
Aquileia
AE 4. Victory dragging captive I.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICAE Victory advancing l., tro-
phy on shoulder, dragging captive. In |. field, Christogram;
in ex., mm.
188 AQP Rev.: SALVSRE[ JPVBLICAE 1.38 g
15mm | T—-;R93; RIC 106/58(c)1l; LRBC
1107=1110=1112
189 [AQP?] Obv.: DNARCADI VSP] Rev.:
SALVSREI[ 1.26g 13mm Y/Y Refs. as last.
190 AQS Obv.: DNARCADI VSPFAV[ 0.96 g
13mm | T-—; R94; RIC 106/58(c)2; LRBC
1107=1110=1112
191 mam. illegible Obv.: DNARCADI VS[ 0.92 g
12mm |
Milan
Siliqua, AR. Roma seated |. T 59-60; R 52; RIC 83/32b; UB
pls. v.56, v1.66. This coinage continued to 402.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VIRTVSRO MANORVM Roma seated I. on cuir-
ass, holding globe surmounted by Victory, and inverted
spear. In ex., MDPS
192 1.19g 17mm ¥ (?broken and skillfully re-
paired).
193 122g 17mm \
194 Obv.: DNARCADI VSPFAV{[ 1.01 g (clipped)
14mm |
Trier
Siliqua, AR. Roma seated |. T 61-2; R 54; RIC 33/106b. As
last, but A for A, C for G (in AVC), and mm. TRPS.
195 1.78g 16mm 7
196 1.74g 17mm |
197 1.58g 17 mm
198 A instead of A Obv.: DNARCADI VSPFA[
Rev.: VIRTVSRO[ 1.40 g 16mm |
199 Rev.: VIRT[ JORVM 1.39 g (clipped) 14mm |
AE 4. Victory advancing I.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTOR IAAVCCC Victory advancing |., holding
wreath and palm; in ex., mm.
200 TR Obv.: JARCADI VSPFA[ Rev.: VI[
JAAVCCC 1.02 g 13mm /“ T-;R--; RIC 32/
98c; LRBC 170
Lyon
Siliqua, AR. Roma seated 1.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VRBS ROMA Roma seated I. on cuirass, holding
globe surmounted by Victory, and inverted spear. In ex.,
LVCPS
201 1.51 g(? slightly clipped) 16mm 7 T 56; R-;
RIC 51/43c; Bastien 1987a, no. 210
AE 4. Victory advancing I.
Obv. DNARCADIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTOR IAAVCCC As 200, but inscription un-
broken
202 LVCP Rev.: VICTOR[ JAVCCC 1.10 g 13 mm
| T-; R33; RIC 52/44(d)1; LRBC 392; Bastien
1987a, no. 225
Arles
AE 4. As 192 ff, but Arles mm.
203 TCON Obv.: DNARCADIVSPFA[ Rev.: VICTO
[ IAAVCCC 1.19g 13mm 7/7 T-; R32; RIC
70/30(e)3; LRBC 566
Uncertain Gallic Mints
Siliqua, AR. As last, but mm. off flan.
204 Obv.: DNARCADI [ ]PFAV[ 1.06 g (clipped) 15
mm
205 Obv. and rev. inscrs. clipped away 0.73 g
(clipped) 11 mm |
“Trier”
Silqua, AR. Roma seated facing.
Obv. As last.
Rev. Inscr. as last. Roma seated facing, looking I., hold-
ing globe in r. hand and inverted spear in |. In ex., mm.
This coin is of the type struck by Magnus Maximus in his
own name and that of Flavius Victor. The rough style of
the coin here, and errors in the design, suggests that it is
an ancient imitation, but presumably an official issue ex-
isted.
206 TRPS 1.17g 14mm |
188. 71.28.14; Seaby 5.v.1971 197. 56.13.41; Grierson, from Lawrence sale, 204. 56.13.46; Grierson, from Baldwin
189. 48.17.110; Peirce 2, lot 988 13.11.1948
190. 48.17.1095; Peirce 198. 70.18; W. R. Tyler, 27.iv.1970 205. 56.13.44; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2,
191. 48.17.1117; Peirce, from Raymond 1928 199, 56.13.43; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2, lot 988
192. 48.17.1103; Peirce, from Ciani x.1925 lot 988 206. 56.13.42; Grierson, from Seaby 31.xii.
193. 70.16; W. R. Tyler, 27.iv.1970 200. 56.13.45; Grierson, from Baldwin 1945
194. 56.13.38; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2, 10.x.1952, ex Lawrence coll.
lot 988 201. 48.17.1090; Peirce
195. 70.17; W.R. Tyler, 27.iv.1970 202. 56.13.39; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2,
196. 48.17.1089; Peirce, from P (Page or lot 988
Platt?) vi.1926 203. 56.13.40; prov. as last
PLATE 8
ARCADIUS (8)
212
211
210
209
208
207
ARCADIUS (8) cont.
Off. A 4.49 g¢g 20mm Y Refs. as last.
Off. B 4.38 g 20mm \ Graffito: B (?) in rev.
l. field T 4, R 41
Off. T 4.44g 20mm | T5,R42
Off. T 4.44 ¢ 20mm \ Refs. as last.
Off. € 4.38 ¢ 20mm \ T7,R-
Off. € 4.49 g 20mm \ Refs. as last.
Off.S 4.45 ¢g 20mm | T8,R43
Off. Z 4.36 g 20mm \N T9, R44
Off. H 4.37 g 20mm \ T 10, R45
Off. 6 4.31 g 20mm \ T 11, R46
216. 56.6.20; Grierson, from Dillen 12.vi.1949
217. Whittemore Loan 21
from Andronikos
Coinage of 395-401 208
209
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. Constantinopolis seated facing, holding globe 210
with Victory. 211
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Armored bust three- 212
quarters facing 213
Rev. CONCORDI AAVCC and officina numeral. Con- 214
stantinopolis seated facing, looking r., holding long scepter 215
and globe surmounted by Victory; r. foot on prow. In ex., 216
CONOB 217
207 Off.A 449g 20mm | T3,R40
207-8. Whittemore 213. Whittemore
209. 58.183; Zacos, 30.ix.1958 214. 58.186; Zacos, 30.ix.1958
210. 48.17.1012; Peirce, from Raymond 215. 48.17.1013; Peirce,
211. Whittemore Loan 19 x.1928
212. Whittemore Loan 20
ARCADIUS (9)
Coinage of 395-401 (cont.)
Constantinople (cont.)
AE 3. Emperor crowned by Victory.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VIRTVS EXERCITI Emperor standing facing,
looking r., holding spear in r. hand and resting I. on shield;
Victory standing to r. crowns him w. wreath and holds palm
in |. hand. In ex., mm.
218 CONSA 2.27 g 18mm f T 119; R115; LRBC
2205
219 CONSA 2.33 g 18mm f Refs. as last.
220 CONSB 2.52g 17mm | T 120; R116; LRBC
2205
221 CONSB 2.22¢ 16mm f
222 CONSA 2.01 g 18mm |
2205
Refs as last.
T 121; R—; LRBC
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. Constantinopolis seated facing; AVGG. T—;
Po.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVG Armored bust three-
quarters facing; Christogram on breastplate.
Rev. CONCORDI AAVGG Constantinopolis seated
facing, looking r., holding long scepter in r. hand and globe
surmounted by Victory in |.; r. foot on prow. In ex.,
COMOB
223 4.28g¢ 21mm \
Nicomedia
AE 3. As 218 ff, but Nicomedia mm.
224 SMNA 1.73g¢g 18mm | T-; cf. R119; LRBC
2436
225 SMNA (?SMHA) 2.49 g¢g 17mm \ Refs. as last
(?0r LRBC 1992, of Heraclea).
Cyzicus
AE 3. As 218 ff, but Cyzicus mm.
226 SMKA 2.82¢g 19mm | T-;R117; LRBC
2580
227 SMKA 2.43¢g 19mm | Refs. as last.
228 SMKB 2.49¢ 17mm | T-;R118; LRBC
2580
229 SMKB 2.23 g 18mm 7 Refs. as last.
230 SMK[ Rev.: VIRTVS[ 2.49 g 17mm \ LRBC
2580
218. 56.13.7; Grierson, from Sydenham sale, 226. 48.17.1044; Peirce,
Antioch
AE 3. As 218 ff, but Antioch mm.
231 ANTA 2.06g 18mm \ T-;R113; LRBC
2791
232 ANTA 2.49g 18mm / Refs. as last.
233 ANTB 2.30g 15mm \ T 123; R114; LRBC
2791
234 AJN[ 2.49¢g 18mm \ LRBC 2791
Alexandria
AE 3. As 218 ff, but Alexandria mm.
235 ALEA 2.74g 17mm \ T-;R112; LRBC
2917
236 ALEA 2.41 g 16mm \% Refs. as last.
Coinage of 402
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. Victory inscribing XX/XXX on shield; no star
in field.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing.
Rev. NOVASPESREIPVBLICAE Victory seated r. on
cuirass, inscribing shield w. XX/XXX. In ex., CONOB
237 436g 20mm | cf. T 28 (off. B, CONOD);
ge
AE 3. Constantinopolis seated facing.
Obv. Armored bust three-quarters facing, as on solidus,
but cross on shield.
Rev. As 223, but inscr. ends CC, not GG. In ex., CONS
and off. numeral.
238 CONSA 2.71 g 17mm \ T 73; R-—; LRBC
2210
239 CONSA 2.70 g 16mm 7 Refs. as last.
240 CONSA 2.49¢g 17mm | Refs. as last.
241 CONSA Obv.: JARCADI VSPFAVC Rev.: CON-
COR[ JAAVCC 1.68 g 17mm \ Refs. as last.
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. As 223, w. Christogram on cuirass, but AVGGG
242 4.36 g (pierced) 20mm \ T-;R-
from Andronikos 235. 48.17.1088; Peirce, from Schulman
lot 869.B x.1928 xi. 1932; olim Lincoln
219. 48.17.1022; Peirce, from Andronikos 227. 48.17.1043; from Schulman 236. 48.17.1084; Peirce
x.1928 xi. 1932; olim Lincoln 237. 57.4.42; Friend
220. 48.17.1021; Peirce 228. Whittemore 238. 58.191.54; Istanbul bazaar, 31.xi.1958
221. 48.17.1023; Peirce 229. 48.17.1045; Peirce 239, 71.27.1; William B. Porter, 11.iv.1971
222. 48.17.1024; Peirce 230. Whittemore 240. Whittemore
223. 67.23; MMAG Basel sale 35, 16.vi.1967, 231. 48.17.1078; Peirce 241. 48.17.1020; Peirce, from Andronikos
lot 191 232. Whittemore x.1928
224. 48.17.1060; Peirce, from Schulman 233. 48.17.1079; Peirce, from Raymond 1928 242. 69.60; H. M. F. Schulman Mail Bid sale 5,
xi. 1932; olim Lincoln 234. Whittemore 6.x.1969, lot G.11
225. Whittemore
PLATE 9
ARCADIUS (9)
222
220
223
234
221
233
232
219
l
23
8
]
2
30
2
235
24]
240
239
238
“937
ARCADIUS (10)
Coinage of 402
Nicomedia
AE 3. Constantinopolis seated facing.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing, as on solidus, but w. cross on shield.
Rev. CONCORDI AAVCC Constantinopolis seated fac-
ing, looking r., holding long scepter in r. hand and globe
surmounted by Victory in |.; r. foot on prow. In ex., mm.
243 JMNA Obv.: JNARC[ ]V[ Rev.: JAAVCC 2.67 g
18mm | T-—; R67; LRBC 2442
244 SMNA Obv.: JA(?)[ Rev.: JAVCC 1.85 g 15
mm
(In view of the illegibility of the obv. inscr., this
coin may be one of Honorius or Theodosius II,
LRBC 2443-4.)
Cyzicus
AE 3. As 243-4, but Cyzicus mm.
245 SMKA 2.49g 17mm Yv cf. T 75 (“SNKA”);
R 65; LRBC 2586
246 SMK[ 2.10g 17mm 7
Antioch
AE 3. As 243-4, but Antioch mm.
247 ANT[ Obv.: ]V[ Rev.: CONCORDI AA[ 2.10 g
10mm \ cf. T 74 (read as ANTS); R 64
(ANTT); LRBC 2797 (only ANTT known). This
may be a coin of Honorius or Theodosius II
(LRBC 2798-9).
Uncertain Mints
AE 3. As 243-4, but mm. off flan.
248 Obv.: DNARCADI VSPF[ Rev.: JORDI AA[
2.82 g 15mm Tf
249 Rev.: JAAVCC 2.74¢ 16mm /7
Coinage of 403-8
Characterized on AV, AR and AE 3 by a star in the field.
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. Victory inscribing XX/XXX on shield, as 237,
but w. star in rev. field.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing.
Rev. NOVASPESREIPVBLICAE and officina numeral.
Victory seated r. on cuirass, inscribing XX/XXX on shield;
in |. field, star. In ex., CONOB
250 Off. B 4.47g 21mm \ T-;R49
Tremissis, AV. Victory advancing (as 82-3, but w. star in
field).
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem);
cross on shoulder.
Rev. VICTORIA AVCVSTORVM Victory advancing
r., looking back, holding wreath in r. hand and gl. cr. in 1.
In r. field, star; in ex., CONOB
251 149g 14mm | T-;R-
Siliqua, AR. VOT X MVLT XX in wreath (vota those of
Honorius).
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (rosette diadem).
Rev. VOT/X/MVLT/XX in wreath; beneath, CONS*¥
252 Plated copper? False (cast) 2.86 g 18mm \
Heraclea
AE 4. Cross.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. CONCOR DIAAVCCC Cross; beneath, mm.
253 SMHB Obv.: DNARCADI VSPFA[ 0.84 g 13
mm \ T-; cf. R61 (SMH?); LRBC 1996
Cyzicus
AE 3. Three emperors standing.
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem); to
l., a star.
Rev. GLORI AROMA NORVM_ Three emperors
standing facing, center figure (Theodosius) smaller than
the others and holding spear and globe, the others each
holding spear and shield; in ex., mm. A’s have the form H.
254 SMKA Obv.: DNHRCHDI[ Rev.: JORI[ 1.05 g
16mm | T 98 (read as SNKA); R 30; LRBC
2590
255 SMKA 2.09g 16mm Y Refs. as last.
256 SMKB 1.70g 16mm f T-; R-; LRBC 2590
AE 4. As 253, but unbroken obv. inscr.; Cyzicus mm.
257 SMKB Rev.: CO[ 0.52 ¢g 10mm f T-;R-;
cf. LRBC 2594, 2597 (broken obv. inscr.).
Antioch
AE 3. As 254-6, but Antioch mm.
258 A[ JIT Obv.: DNARCADI[ 1.64¢g 14mm \
T—-; R29; LRBC 2801
Alexandria
AE 3. As 254-6, but Alexandria mm.
259 ALEA 1.99g 14mm \ T-;R-; LRBC 2923
260 $ALEA Obv.: JADI VSPFAVC Rev.: GLO[ JA
NORVM 1.49g¢g 13mm \ Refs. as last.
AE 4. As 253, but unbroken obv. inscr., and CONCORDIA
AVC; Alexandria mm.
261 ALEA Obv.: DNARCADIV[ Rev.: CONC[ 0.92
g 10mm | T-; R57; LRBC 2920
262 j|LEB Obv.: JNARCADIVSPF[ Rev.: JONCOR-
DIAAV[ 0.82 ¢g 9mm \ T-; R-; LRBC
243. 58.191.58; Istanbul bazaar, 31.xi.1958 2920
244. 56.13.17; Grierson, from Glendining sale
30.xii. 1947, lot 186 250. 71.8; Franceschi 15.i.1971 257. 86.6.3; Grierson 10.i1.1987, from Baldwin
245. Whittemore 251. 48.17.1014; Peirce 10.xi.1986
246. 71.29.3; Baldwin 28.v.1971 252. 48.17.1015; Peirce, from SLCC 258. 48.17.1080; Peirce
247. 56.13.30; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2, 253. 59.9; Platt 5.v.1959 259. 48.17.1106; Peirce
lot 988 254. 48.17.1047; Peirce, from Andronikos 260. Whittemore
248. 48.17.1113; Peirce x.1928 261. 71.28.5; Seaby 5.v.1971
249. 56.13.47; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2, 255. 48.17.1048; Peirce
lot 988 256. 48.17.1049; Peirce
262. 86.6.2; Grierson 10.i.1987, from Baldwin
10.x1.1986
PLATE 10
ARCADIUS (10)
ARCADIUS (10) cont.
Uncertain Mints
AE 3. As 254-6, but normal A; mm. off flan.
263 Obv.: JRCADI VSPFA[ 1.49¢g 14mm f
AE 4. As 253, but unbroken obv. legend; mm. off flan.
264 Obv.: JADIVSPFAVC] Rev.: CONCORDI[ 0.94
g llmm f
Coinage in the West, 394—408
Milan (394-402)
Solidus, AV. Emperor spurning captive. T 29; R 12; RIC 84/
35b; UB pls. v.51 (as 394/5), v1.60 (as 395-408).
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVGGG Emperor standing facing,
looking r., holding labarum in r. hand and spurning captive
w. |. foot. In field, M D; in ex., COMOB
265 444g 20mm Tf
266 444g 20mm |
267 443g 20mm f
Tremissis, AV. Victory advancing r. T 43; R16; RIC 81/
23(c)2; UB pls. v.54 (as 394/5), v1.62 (as 395-408)
Obv. As last.
Rev. VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM Victory advancing
r., holding wreath in r. hand and gl. cr. in |. In field, M D;
in ex., COM
263. Whittemore
264. 60.52; Grierson 3.i11.1960
265. 48.17.1097; Peirce, from Spink iii. 1927
266. 48.17.1098; Peirce, from Andronikos
x.1928
267. 48.17.1100; Peirce, from Platt
268. 48.17.1102; Peirce, from Spink iii. 1929
269. 57.17; “Foreign Ambassador” sale, lot 462
268 138g 12mm |
Rome (404; see above, pp. 128 ff)
Solidus, AV. As 265-7, but R M in field. T-—; R 14
269 442g 21mm |
Light miliarense, AR. Emperor standing w. labarum and
shield. T-; R-
Obv. DNARCADI VSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VIRTVS EXERCITVS Emperor standing facing,
looking |., holding spear in r. hand, and resting |. hand on
shield. In ex., RMPS
270 3.92 g 23mm f
AE 3. Roma standing w. trophy on spear (402-8).
Obv. DNARCAD IVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VRBSRO MAFELIX Roma standing facing, look-
ing r., holding trophy on spear and globe surmounted by
Victory. In field, OF and off. initial; in ex., SMROM
271 OF T mm. illegible Obv.: DNARCAD IVSP[
Rev.: JRO MAFELIX 2.59¢g 17mm 7 T-;
R 122; RIC 135/67(c)3 (dated incorrectly); LRBC
813
Ravenna (402-8)
Solidus, AV. As 265-7, but R V in field. T 30-1; R 13
272 447g 21mm f
270. 81.1; Baldwin 20.iv.1981
271. 48.17.1091; Peirce
272. 48.17.1099; Peirce, from Platt
EUDOXIA
Wife of Arcadius 9 January 400 — 6 October 404
First Coinage, 400-1
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. Victory seated r. T 136-9 (w. B, A, €, no nu-
meral); R-—; PCR III.1575 (no numeral).
Obv. AELEVDO XIAAVC Bust r.; above, Manus Dei
holding crown.
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICAE and usually officina nu-
meral. Victory seated r. on cuirass, inscribing Chi-Rho on
shield set on column. In ex., CONOB
273 No off. numeral. 4.49g 20mm |
AE 3. Salus Reipublicae, Victory seated r. T 149; R 209;
LRBC 2213; PCR 111.1577 (all CONSA).
Obv. As last.
Rev. As last, but no officina numeral following inscr., and
in ex. CONS and officina numeral.
274 CONSA 2.40 g 17 mm
275 CONSA Obv.: AELEVDO XIf JC Rev.: JREI
PVBLICAE 3.33 g 17mm A
276 CONSA 2.49g 18mm /
277 CONS[ Rev.: SALVSREI PVBLI[ 2.55 g 16mm
278 CONS[ 2.32 g 18mm f
Nicomedia
AE 3. As last, but w. SMN and officina numeral. T —; R-;
LRBC 2445
279 SMNA 2.06¢g 18mm |
280 SMNA 246g 17mm \
281 SMNA 2.49¢ 17mm |
Cyzicus
AE 3. As last, but w. SMK and officina numeral. T —; R 210
(SMKA); LRBC 2589
282 SMKA 2.54g 17mm fT
283 SMKA 2.33 g 18mm /
284 SMKA 2.15g 19mm f
285 SMKA 2.49g 18mm 7
286 SMKI 1.49¢g 16mm |
Anuoch
AE 3. As last, but w. ANT and officina numeral. T 150
(ANTT); R 208 (ANTT); LRBC 2800
287 ANTT No loop to Christogram on shield, thus
making it a simple monogram of IX 2.74 g 15
mm \
288 ANTI 246g 16mm |
Uncertain Mint
AE 3. As last, but mm. off flan.
289 251g 17mm f
Second Coinage, 402
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. As 273, but shield rests on knee of Victory in-
stead of on column. T — Not represented.
AE 3. Gloria Romanorum, Empress seated facing. T 146
(CONSA); LRBC 2217
Obv. As 274 ff.
Rev. GLORIARO MANORVM Empress seated facing
on throne, hands clasped on breast; above, Manus Dei hold-
ing crown, no symbol in field. In ex., CONS and officina
numeral.
Not represented.
Third Coinage, 403-4
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. As preceding type of solidus (shield on knee),
but star in I. field. T 140; R 139
290 450g 21mm |
AE 3. As preceding type of AE 3 (empress seated facing),
but cross in rev. |. field and either CONS or CON w. off.
numeral.
291 CONST GLOR[ JANORVM 1.53 g 15mm |
T-; R-; LRBC 2218
292 CONB 1.97g 17mm | T-;R-;LRBC
2220
Nicomedia
AE 3. As last, but SMN and officina numeral; cross in r.
field. T 148 (SMNA); R—; LRBC 2450
293 No off. numeral 2.19g 17mm \
Alexandria
AE 3. As last, but ALE and off. numeral; cross in r. field.
T-; R141; LRBC -
294 ALEA GLORIARO[ 2.55 g 15 mm J
273. Whittemore 281. Whittemore 289. 48.17.1128; Peirce, from Bourgey iii. 1926
274. 48.17.1120; Peirce 282. 47.2.9; Shaw 1947 290. 48.17.1118; Peirce, from Andronikos
275. Whittemore 283. 58.191.60; Istanbul bazaar 31.x.1958 x.1928
276. Whittemore 284. 48.17.1121; Peirce, from Ciani x.1925 291. 79.28; Baldwin 28.viii. 1979
277. 48.17.1119; Peirce, from Andronikos 285. Whittemore
292. 79.25; prov. as last
x.1928 286. Whittemore 293. 79.27; prov. as last
278. 79.26; Baldwin 28. viii.1979 287. 48.17.1124; Peirce, from SLCC vii.1930 294. 48.17.1125; Peirce, from Schulman xi.
279. 48.17.1123; Peirce 288. 71.2; Franceschi 5.i.1971 1932, olim Lincoln
280. 48.17.1122; Peirce
PLATE 11
EUDOXIA
294
293
292
291
290
THEODOSIUS II
Augustus 10 January 402 — 28 July 450
Coinage of 402-8
(a) Coinage of 402 (without star in field)
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. Concordia Auccc and Constantinopolis seated.
T-;R-
Obv. DNTHEODO SIVSPFAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing.
Rev. CONCORDI AAVCCC and officina numeral.
Constantinopolis seated facing, looking r., holding spear in
r. hand and globe surmounted by Victory in I. In ex.,
CONOB
295 Off. numeral A 4.40g 20mm |
296 Off. numeral 0 4.40g 20mm |
AE 3. Concordia Aucc and Constantinopolis seated. LRBC
2212 var. (broken legend).
Obv. DNTHEODOSIVSPFAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing.
Rev. CONCORDI AAVCC Constantinopolis seated,
crowned by a Victory. In ex., mm.
297 CONSA 2.39g 17mm \
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. As 295, but w. Christogram on breastplate, no
off. numeral, and rev. COMOB
298 435g 21mm f
Nicomedia
AE 3. As 297, but Nicomedia mm. LRBC 2444
299 SMNA 2.32 g 16mm \
Cyzicus
AE 3. As 297, but Cyzicus mm. LRBC 2588
300 SMKA 2.49¢g 17mm fT
301 SMK[ 2.68g 16mm f
Antioch
AE 3. As 297, but Antioch mm. LRBC 2799
302 ANT[ 149g 17mm \
(b) Coinage of 403-8 (with star in obv. or rev. field)
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. As 295, but w. star on rev. T—; R—; MI/RB 12a
303 Off. numeral A 4.49 g 22mm \
304 Off. numeral A 4.33 ¢ 20mm /
305 Off. numeral H 4.41 g 21mm |
295. Whittemore Loan 28
Light miliarense, AR. Emperor standing facing. T—; R-;
MIRB 6la. This coin is perhaps later than 408, since no
counterpart in Arcadius’ name w. star in field is known, but
the bust is that of a very young man.
Obv. DNTHEODO SIVSPFAVC Bust I. (rosette dia-
dem).
Rev. CLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor standing fac-
ing, nimbate, looking L., r. hand raised, globe in L.; in 1. field,
star; in ex., CON
306 4.17 g 23mm |
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. As 298, w. Christogram on breastplate and no
off. numeral, but star on rev. T—; R—; MIRB 52a
307 437g 20mm f
Cyzicus
AE 3. Three emperors standing facing, as 254 ff of Arca-
dius, on Pl. 10. LRBC 2592
Obv. DNTHEODO SIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem);
in |. field, star.
Rev. CLORI AROMA NORVM_ Three emperors
standing facing, center figure (Theodosius) smaller than
the others, who each hold spear and shield. In ex., mm.
308 SMKA 1.77 g 14mm
309 SMKA 1.49g 15mm f
Antioch
AE 3. As 308-9, but Antioch mm. LRBC 2804
310 ANT[ 143g 15mm \
311 ANTX (sic) JDO SIVSPFAVC and CL[ JROMA
NORV[ 1.29 g (chipped) 15 mm
Alexandria
AE 3. As 308-9, but Alexandria mm. LRBC 2925
312 ALEA 2.60g 16mm \
Coinage of 408-19
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. As 295, but AVCC and star in rev. I. field. MJRB
12b
313 Off. numeral A 4.44 g 21mm | T1;R143
314 Off. numeral B 4.34 g 20mm | T2;R-
315 Off. numeral € (recut over T) 4.37 g 21 mm
| T4
316 Off. numeral S 4.48 g 21mm Y/Y Graffito on
obv. r. field: 77 T5; R146
317 Off. numeral Z 4.49 g 23mm \ T7; R-
318 Off. numeral 0 4.03 g (pierced) 21 mm |
T 8; R— Plated forgery, apparently ancient.
296. 56.2.22; Grierson, from Dillen 29.ix.1950 305. 66.2; Kress sale 22.ix. 1965, lot 409 313. 58.182; Zacos 30.ix.1958
297. 71.29.4; Baldwin 28.v.1971 306. 67.36; Crippa 20.xi. 1967 314. Whiutemore Loan 27
298. 79.3; Baldwin 9.iv.1979 307. 69.2; Vinchon 9.i.1969 315. 57.4.44; Friend
299. 48.17.1160; Peirce, from Andronikos 308. 48.17.1158; Peirce 316. 56.6.23; Grierson, from Spink 17.vi.1949,
x.1928 309. Whittemore from Sotheby sale 24.v.1949, lot 87
300. 48.17.1163; Peirce 310. 59.16; Platt 5.vi.1959 317. Whittemore
301. Whittemore 311. 86.6.4; Grierson 10.1.1987, from Baldwin 318. 48.17.1132; Peirce, from Andronikos
302. Whittemore 16.xii. 1986 x.1928
303. Whittemore 312. 48.17.1162; Peirce, from Andronikos
304. 58.185; Zacos 30.ix.1958 x.1928
PLATE 12
THEODOSIUS II (1)
305
304
303
302
301
311
310
309
308
307
THEODOSIUS II (2)
Coinage of 408-19 (cont.)
Constantinople (cont.)
Tremissis, AV. Victory w. wreath and gl. cr. T 65-6; MIRB
45. Save for the interruption of 361-2, this type was struck
throughout the reign, probably from 403 onward. 320-3
were published by Bellinger et al. 1964, nos. 278-81, as
coins of Theodosius I.
Obv. DNTHEODO SIVSPFAVC Diademed bust r.
Rev. VICTORIA AVCVSTORVM Victory advancing
r., looking backward holding wreath in r. hand and gl. cr.
in |.; in r. field, star; in ex., CONOB
319 1.42 g¢ 14mm 7 Graffito in obv. r. field: A
320 140g 14mm | Graffito in obv. |. field: \W (or
H?) F
321 129g 14mm \
322 128g 14mm |
323 150g 14mm f
324 148g 14mm | Scratches in obv. r. field.
325 149g 15mm 7
326 149g 14mm 7
327 149g 14mm Tf
AE 4. Cross in wreath. The unbroken legend may date it
before 408. MIRB 84
Obv. DNTHEODOSIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, mm.
328 CON 0.85 g ll mm \ LRBC 2238
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. As 313-18, but no off. numeral, and TESOB.
MIRB 54b
329 440g 21mm \
AE 3. Two emperors standing facing each other. LRBC
1877; MIRB 72
Obv. DNTHEODO SIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem);
in I. field, star.
Rev. CLORIA ROMA NORVM Two emperors (Hon-
orius and Theodosius) standing facing each other, each
holding shield and spear; in ex., TESA
330 2.27¢ 15mm ®\
331 166g 15mm \
Nicomedia
AE 4. As 328, but broken obv. inscr. (DO —SI), and Ni-
comedia mm. T 82; LRBC 2460
332 SMNA 149g 1llmm /4
333 SMNB 1.18g 11mm f
Cyzicus
AE 4. As 332-3, but Cyzicus mm. LRBC 2604
334 SMK[ 1.06g 13 mm
335 SMKA 1.20g 12mm f
336 SMKB 1.27g 13mm 4
337 SMKA 1.10g 13mm |
Alexandria
AE 4. As 332-3, but Alexandria mm. LRBC —
338 ALE[ 099g 12mm \
Uncertain Mints
AE 3. Two standing figures, as 330-1, w. star to |. of head
on obv., but mm. illegible.
339 148g 15mm fT
340 GLORIA[ 1.71g 13mm |
AE 4. As 332-8, w. broken inscr., but mm. illegible or off
flan.
341 149g 12mm 7
342 0.92¢, 10mm \
AE 4. As last, but uncertain whether broken or unbroken
inscr.
343 = 1.11
344 0.85¢ 9mm \
345 048g 9mm VY Barbarous.
319. Whittemore Loan 14 330. 48.17.1166; Peirce, from Andronikos 340. 86.6.5; Grierson 10.i.1987, from Baldwin
320. Whittemore Loan 12 x.1928 10.xii. 1986
321. Whittemore Loan 13 331. 48.17.1167; Peirce 341. Whittemore
322. Whittemore Loan 11 332. Whittemore 342. 56.23.2533; Bertelé
323. 48.17.1149; Peirce, from Schulman 333. Whittemore Loan 52 343. Whittemore
iv.1930 334. 48.17.1159; Peirce 344. 56.13.78; Grierson, from Seaby
324. 48.17.1150; Peirce, from Andronikos 335. 48.17.1165; Peirce 17.x.1945, ex Grantley 2777
x.1928 336. 71.25.1; Grierson 16.iii.1971, ex Longuet 345. 56.13.79; Grierson, from Baldwin
325-7. Whittemore 337. 48.17.1164; Peirce 21.11.1948
328. 48.17.1156; Peirce, from Andronikos
x.1928
329. 68.17; Bank Leu, 18.x.1968
338.
339.
71.24; Ars et Nummus_ (Milan),
16.iii. 1971 (December 1970 list, no. 418)
Whittemore
PLATE 13
THEODOSIUS II (2)
340
39
3
337
336
335
333
THEODOSIUS II (2) cont.
Ceremonial Coinages, 408-19
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. 415
Obv. DNTHEODO SIVSPFAVC Helmeted bust r.
holding spear and shield.
Rev. CLORIA REI PVBLICAE Roma and Constantin-
opolis seated, supporting shield inscribed VOT/XV/MVL/
XX; in |. field, star; in ex., CONOB
346 428g 22mm | T 17; MIRB5
Solidus, AV. 416 or 418
Obv. Inscr. as last. Beardless consular bust |., nimbate,
holding mappa and cross-scepter.
Rev. SECVRITASRE IPVBLICAE Emperor seated
facing in consular costume, holding mappa and cross-
scepter; in |. field, star; in ex., CONOB
347 442g 21mm / MIRB N7
Light miliarense, AR. Date uncertain, probably between 410
and 420. MIRB 59
Obv. Inscr. as last. Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. CLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor standing fac-
ing, nimbate, looking I., w. spear in r. hand and I. resting
on shield; in |. field, star; in ex., CON
348 4.30 g (obv. scraped) 21 mm \ The mint-mark
looks like COM, but the star in the field is not
compatible with a Western attribution. Appar-
ently the N was inscribed with the diagonal up-
ward instead of downward, and the apparent M
results from an inept attempt to correct it.
346. 48.17.1131; Peirce, from Spink xi.1936
347. 69.12; Bank Leu 23.v.1969
348. 71.10; Baldwin 18.i.1971
349. 48.17.1171; Peirce, from Schulman
iii. 1931
350. 57.4.113; Friend; from MMAG Basel sale
12, 11.vi.1953, lot 897
Western Coinage
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. Struck by Honorius (or by John?) in Theodos-
ius’ name.
Obv. Inscr. as last. Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Emperor standing r., hold-
ing labarum in r. hand and globe surmounted by Victory
in l., spurning captive w. I. foot. In field, R V; in ex.,
COMOB
349 445g 21mm | T39
Coinage of 420-9
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. 420-1. Victory holding long cross. T 47;
R 166-8; MIRB 15. On the date, see above, pp. 142-3.
Obv. Inscr. as last. Armored bust three-quarters facing
Rev. VOTXX MVLTXXX and officina numeral. Vic-
tory standing |., holding long cross, no star in field. In ex.,
CONOB
350 Off.f 448g 21mm |
351 Off.4 449¢ 21mm |
352 Off.H 445g 21mm |
351. Whittemore
352. 56.6.28; Grierson, from Spink, 10.vi.1945
THEODOSIUS II (3)
Coinages of 420-9
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. VOT XX series, without star (cont.). 420-1
353 No off. numeral 4.47 g 20mm /
VOT XX series, star in upper field on rev. 422. T 40-6,
48; R 165; MIRB 18
354 Off.S 449g 21mm | T 43
355 Off.6 447g 21mm /Y
Semissis, AV. 420—. Victory inscribing XX/XXX on shield
T 63; MIRB 39
Obv. Inscr. as last. Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORIAAVCC Victory seated r. inscribing XX/
XXX on shield. In |. field, star; in r. field, Christogram; in
ex., CONOB
356 2.19g 18mm \ Graffiti in obv. r. field: two
A’s.
Siliqua, AR. 420—. T 72-3; R-—; MIRB 66
Obv. As last.
Rev. VOT/XX/MVLT/XXxX in wreath; beneath, CONS
357 149g 17mm |
358 2.14g 18mm \
Solidus, AV. 423-4. CLOR ORVIS TERRAR (for Gloria
orbis terrarum). Emperor standing. T 10-15; R 149; MIRB
32
Obv. As last.
Rev. CLORORVI STERRAR and normally officina nu-
meral. Emperor standing facing, in military costume, hold-
ing labarum in r. hand and gl. cr. in |. In 1. field, star; in
ex., CONOB
359 Off. A 4.26g 21mm \
360 Off. S 4.42 g 21mm 7 Graffito in obv. r. field.
Tremissis, AV. 423—4. Trophy of arms on rev. T 64; R 185;
MIRB 48. For the date, see above, pp. 141, 144.
Obv. As last.
Rev. Trophy of arms; in field |. and r., star; in ex.,
CONOB
AE 3. Emperor standing w. labarum and gl. cr. LRBC-,
but cf. 2227 for same type but w. Glor orvis terrar inscr. Cf.
MIRB 77-8
Obv. Inscr. as last. Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTO RIAAG and off. numeral. Same type as
359-60, but no star in rev. field. In ex. mm.
363 mm. off flan. Off. 4 1.06g 13mm |
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. 423-4. As 359-60, but no off. numeral and
TESOB as mm. T 16; R 150-1; M/JRB 58
364 444¢ 20mm \
365 442¢ 20mm \
366 439g 21mm |
367 435¢ 22mm \
368 449g 21mm |
369 449g 21mm |
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. 425. Joint consulship of Theodosius II and Val-
entinian III, the latter not yet augustus. T 33-5; R 160;
MIRB 22
Obv. Inscr. as last. Armored bust three-quarters facing
Rev. SALVSREI PVB LICAE Theodosius seated fac-
ing, Valentinian standing on the r., each in consular cos-
tume and holding mappa and cross-scepter. Above, star; in
ex., CONOB
370 447g 21mm |
371 437g 21mm |
372 435g 20mm |
373 449g 22mm /
Solidus, AV. 426 (?—429). Joint consulship of Theodosius II
and Valentinian III, the latter now also augustus. T 25-32;
R 156-9; MIRB 23
Obv. As last.
Rev. As last, but both emperors nimbate, Valentinian
seated. Inscr. usually followed by officina numeral.
374 No off. numeral 4.44 g 21mm \ T 32;
R 158-9
375 Off.S 446g 21mm f T 28
376 Off.1 4.25¢ 20mm |
361 1.46¢g 14mm \
362 149g l4mm |
353. 48.17.1143; Peirce, from Andronikos 361. 57.41; Grierson 7.x.1957, from Seaby
x.1928 21.vii. 1947
354. Whittemore 362. Whittemore
355. Whittemore Loan 43 363. 48.1168; Peirce, from Andronikos x.1928
356. 56.6.30; Grierson, from Gans 24.ix.1953 364. 46.4; Brummer 26.vi.1946
357. Whittemore 365. 48.17.1170; Peirce, from Spink vi.1929
358. 48.17.1151; Peirce, from Andronikos 366. Whittemore Loan 29
x.1928 367. 57.4.47; Friend
359. 56.6.25; Grierson, from Seaby 15.ii.1950 368. Whittemore
360.
56.6.24;
27.ii1.1951
Grierson, from Baranowsky
369.
370.
Whittemore
48.17.1140; Peirce, from Spink v.1931
S7l.
372.
373.
374.
375.
376.
Whittemore Loan 42
57.4.46; Friend
Whittemore
48.17.1141; Peirce
56.6.26; Grierson, from Seaby 14.xi.1950
48.17.1142; Peirce, from Baldwin xi.1928
PLATE 14
THEODOSIUS II (3)
358
357
356
355
354
353
See
4 oe
“s
(7:
~~
THEODOSIUS II (4)
Coinage of 430-40
Constantinople
Double solidus, AV. 430. On the date, see above, p. 145.
MIRB 2
Obv. DNTHEODO SIVSPFAVC Bearded bust r.
Rev. GLORIA R O MANORVM Roma and Constan-
tinopolis seated, Roma facing and holding globe (sur-
mounted by Victory) and spear, Constantinopolis half-l., w.
r. foot on prow, holding globe (surmounted by Victory) and
long scepter. In |. field, *; above, cross; in ex., CONOB
377 8.95 g 28mm | Illus. of this coin w. enlarge-
ment of obv. in Kent 1978, pls. 189-90, no. 748
Solidus, AV. January 430. Consular issue. MJRB 7
Obv. Inscr. as last. Consular bust I.
Rev. VOTXXX MVLTXXXX Theodosius and Valen-
tinian III, both nimbate, seated in consular costume, each
holding mappa and cross-scepter. Above, star; in ex.,
CONOB
378 440g 20mm Y
Solidus, AV. 430-9. VOT XXX MVLT XXXX. T 49-58;
R 169-78; MIRB 25
Obv. Inscr. as last. Armored bust three-quarters facing
Rev. VOTXXX MVLTXXXX and usually officina nu-
meral. Constantinopolis enthroned |., holding gl. cr. in r.
hand and long scepter in |.; |. foot on prow, and shield by
|. side. In r. field, star; in ex., CONOB
379 Off. B 4.46g 21 mm
380 Off. Tf 4.49 g 21 mm
381 Off.€ 4.35¢ 20mm |
382 Off.S 446g 21mm \
383 Off.Z 446g 21mm |
384 Off.Z 445¢ 21mm |
385 Off.1 4.28g 21mm |
386 Off. 1 2.13 g 21mm | Contemporary forgery,
apparently gilded AE
387 No off. numeral 4.46g 20mm |
Siliqua, AR. 430-9. VOT XXX MVLT XXXX in wreath.
T 74; R 188; MIRB 67
Obv, Inscr. as last. Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. 430—. As 379-87, but w. mm. TESOB. T-;
R 179; MIRB 56
390 No off. numeral 4.37 g 20mm |
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. 435. Consular issue. T—; R—; MIJRB V8
Obv. Inscr. as last. Consular bust I.
Rev. VOTXXXV MVLTXXXX Theodosius in consular
costume, nimbate, seated facing, holding mappa and cross
scepter. In I. field, star; in ex., CONOB
391 448g 21mm \
AE 4. 435. VT XXX V (for Vot XXXV). T 81; R—; LRBC
2244; MIRB 87
Obv. DNTHEODOSIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VT/XXX/V in wreath; beneath, mm.
392 DNTHEODOSI{ CON 1.10g 1lmm |
393 ‘Traces of obv. inscr. CON 1.35 g 11mm 7
Constantinople or Cyzicus
AE 4. As last. LRBC 2244 or 2607
394 Mm. off flan 1.16g 16mm \
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. 437. Marriage of Licinia Eudoxia to Valentinian
Ill. T—; R—; MIRB 8
Obv. DNTHEODO SIVSPFAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing.
Rev. FELICITER NUBTIIS Three nimbate figures
standing facing, the central one (Theodosius) tallest; the
two others have joined hands. In ex., CONOB
395 4.37 g 21mm | Surface damaged.
Semissis, AV. 440. Victory inscribing XXXX on shield. Cf.
T 61; MIRB N42b
Obv. DNTHEODO SIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTOR IAAVCCC Victory seated r., inscribing
X/XXX on shield; in bottom r. field, Christogram; in ex.,
CONOB
396 2.22¢g 19mm |
Siliqua, AR. 440. VOT/MVLT/XXxXxX. On the date (440 or
Rev. VOT/XXX/MVLT/XXXX_ in wreath; beneath, 435?), see above, p. 146. T 75; R 189; MJRB 68
CONS* Obv. As last.
388 1.77g 18mm \ Rev. VOT/MVLT/XXXX in wreath; beneath, CONS*
389 109g 15mm \ 397 149g 17mm 7f
398 161g 16mm |
377. 69.14 Bequest of Mrs. Bliss. Said to have 385. 56.6.29; Grierson, from Spink 10.iv.1945, 392. 48.17.1157; Peirce, from Andronikos
been found in Egypt. Acq. in 1958 from ex Gantz sale, lot 682 x.1928
MMAG Basel by friends of Mr. and Mrs. 386. 48.17.1147; Peirce, from Ciani 11.vi.1926 393. 71.37.6; Grierson 19.vii.1971, from
Bliss as a gift for their fiftieth wedding an- 387. Whittemore Loan 47 MMAG Basel 15.vi.1971
niversary on 14 April 1958. 388. 48.17.1152; Peirce, from Andronikos 394. 71.37.5; prov. as last
378. 48.17.1145; Peirce, from Raymond x. 1928 395. 58.8; Hess sale (Lucerne) 2.iv.1958, lot
xi. 1930 389. 48.17.1153; Peirce, from Raymond 411
379. Whittemore Loan 44 ii. 1930 396. 48.17.1146; Peirce, from SLCC vii.1930
380. Whittemore 390. 59.4; Hess-Bank Leu sale, 24.iii.1959, lot 397. Whittemore
381. Whittemore Loan 48 404 398. Whittemore
382. Whittemore Loan 46 391. 79.29; Bank Leu 31.viii.1979 = Bank Leu
383. Whittemore Loan 49 sale 13, 28.iv.1975, lot 540
384.
Whittemore Loan 45
PLATE 15
THEODOSIUS II (4)
383
381
THEODOSIUS II (5)
Coinage of 439-50
Constantinople
Siliqua, AR. 440 and later. VOT/MVLT/XXXxX type (cont.).
On the initial date (440 or 435?), see above, p. 146.
(a) CONOB, no off. numeral
410 449g 22mm \
411 445g 21mm |
412 436g 20mm |
413 448¢ 22mm \
399 158g 17mm f
400 151g 17mm ¥ (b) COMOB, no off. numeral
401 1.37 g 17 mm ) Mutilation over neck: X On the mint, taken here to be Constantinople, see above,
402 1.22¢ 16mm | pp. 61, 147.
403 1l.llg 18mm | 414 450g 21mm \
404 130g 19mm f 415 445g 21mm \
405 130g 18mm | 416 3.53g 19mm | Clipped, presumably at the
406 1.3lg 18mm \ time, for the edges are now normally worn down.
407 146g 18mm | 417 448g 22mm ¥Y
408 0.86g 16mm f 418 448g 21mm |
409 149g 19mm 7/7 419 448g 21mm |
420 441g 20mm \
Solidus, AV. 442/3 Seated Constantinopolis; IMP XXXXII 421 450g 21mm /
COS XVII T 18-24 (COMOB and CONOB confused); 422 444g 22mm \
R 153 (CONOB), 154—5 (COMOB); MIRB 33 423 448g 21mm \
Obv. DNTHEODOSI VSPFAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing.
Rev. IMPXXXXIICOS XVII*P*P*, sometimes followed
by off. numeral. Seated Constantinopolis w. gl. cr. in r.
hand. In |. field, star; in ex., CONOB or COMOB
399. 48.17.1154; Peirce, from Andronikos 407. 56.13.72; Grierson, from Baldwin 416. Whittemore Loan 37
x.1928 13.viii. 1948 417. Whittemore Loan 35
400. Whittemore Loan 50 408. Whittemore Loan 775 418. Whittemore Loan 38
401. Whittemore Loan 774 409. Whittemore Loan 778 419. 48.17.1133; Peirce, acq. in Paris
402. Whittemore Loan 777 410. Whittemore Loan 34 420. 48.17.1134; Peirce, acq. in Paris
403. 56.13.71; Grierson, from Tinchant 411. Whittemore Loan 40 421. 57.4.45; Friend
29.11.1949 412. 48.17.1139; Peirce 422. Whittemore Loan 36
404. Whittemore Loan 776 413. Whittemore Loan 33 423. Whittemore Loan 39
405. Whittemore Loan 51 414. Whittemore Loan 30
406. Whittemore Loan 779 415. Whittemore Loan 41
PLATE 16
THEODOSIUS II (5)
411
410
409
408
407
406
423
422
421
0
42
419
418
THEODOSIUS II (6) — PULCHERIA (1)
THEODOSIUS II (6)
Coinage of 439-50 (cont.)
Constantinople (cont.)
Solidus, AV. 442/3 IMP XXXXII series (cont.).
(b) COMOB, no off. numeral (cont.)
424 448g 21mm /Y
425 449g 22mm /Y
(c) COMOB, with off. numeral
426 Off. A 450g 23mm | T 19-20 Same obv.
die as 427
427 Off.S 446g 22mm | T-;R155 Same obv.
die as 426
Solidus, AV. 444. IMP XXXXIIII COS XVIII. T-; R-;
MIRB 11
Obv. DNTHEODO SIVSPFAVC Consular bust l., hold-
ing mappa and cross-scepter.
Rev. IMPXXXXIIII COSXVIII Theodosius seated fac-
ing, in consular costume, nimbate, holding mappa and
cross-scepter. In l. field, star; in ex., CONOB
428 446g 20mm |
Semissis, AV. 445. Same type as 396, but Victory inscribing
XX/VXX on shield. Cf. T 61; R-—; MIRB N42c
429 215g 18mm |
Solidus, AV. Late 440s. Emperor dragging captive. T 37-9;
R 161-4; MIRB 31
Obv. DNTHEODO SIVSPFAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing.
Rev. VIRTEX ERCROM Emperor advancing to r.,
bearing trophy and dragging captive by the hair. In r. field,
star; in ex., CONOB
430 Off. X\ 449g 20mm Y/Y T-;R163
431 Off.1 444g 20mm | T-;R-
432 No off. numeral 4.42 g 20mm | T 17; R 164
Uncertain Mints. Probably Constantinople
AE 4. Last years of the reign. Monogram in wreath. T 83;
R-—; MIRB 86
Obv. DNTHEODOSIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Monogram [xf in wreath; beneath, mm.
433 mm. off flan 1.33 g 12mm f
434 mm. off flan 1.12 ¢ 13mm |
431. 56.6.27; Grierson,
10.xi.1948, lot 3
424. Whittemore
Coinage of Uncertain Date
AE 2. 426(?). Two emperors standing facing. LRBC 2231;
MIRB 71
Obv. DNTHEODO SIVSPFAVC Helmeted bust r., w.
shield and spear.
Rev. CONCOR DIAAGV Theodosius and Valentinian
standing facing, wearing armor and holding each a spear
and jointly a long cross. In ex., CONS
435 DNTHEODO[ CONCO[ 5.30 g 21mm /
PULCHERIA
Augusta 4 July 414 — July 453
The coins are all of Constantinople, despite the COMOB
mint-mark on 441-2. All save 443, and perhaps 445-7,
were struck in her name by Theodosius II. 443 is dated by
the legend and the position of the star to the reign of Mar-
cian, whose solidi exhibit the same features. The vota on
her coins are those of Theodosius II. No coins were struck
in her name by Western emperors.
Solidus, AV
Class 1. 414-19. Salus Retpublicae and seated Victory.
T 31; R 233; MIRB “Th. II” 14
Obv. AELPVLCH ERIAAVC Bust r.; above, Manus Dei
holding crown.
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICAE Victory seated r. on cuir-
ass, inscribing Chi-Rho on shield; in |. field, star; in ex.,
CONOB
436 448g 20mm |
Class 2. 420-30. VOT XX MVLT XXX, Victory holding
long cross.
Obv. As Class 1.
Rev. VOTXX MVLTXXX and usually officina numeral.
Victory standing |. holding long cross, w. star sometimes in
upper I. field. In ex., CONOB
(a) Without star 420-21
437 Off.4 446g 21mm /“ T-; R-; MIRB “Th.
Le’ 17
(b) With star 422-29
438 No off. numeral 4.49 g 22mm \ T 36; R 237;
MIRB “Th. IL” 19a
439 Off.B 443g 21mm /“ T-; R-; MIRB “Th.
II” 19b
from Glendining
435. 80.1; Baldwin 23.iv.1980
425. Whittemore Loan 31 432. 48.17.1144; Peirce, from Andronikos 436. 48.17.1182; Peirce, from Andronikos
426. Whittemore Loan 32 x.1928 x.1928
427. 48.17.1138; Peirce, from Spink iv.1931 433. 56.13.76; Grierson, from Seaby 20.ix. 437. 57.4.115; Friend
428. 62.11; Sternberg 26.iv.1962 1945, ex Grantley 2777 438. Whittemore
429. 47.2.5; Shaw 434. 48.17.1155; Peirce, ex Prince Philipp sale, 439. Whittemore Loan 66
430. Whittemore lot 617
PLATE 17
THEODOSIUS II (6), PULCHERIA (1)
428
42
42
425
424
—~
.
.
We Q\iaws :
. ~~ ont.
A
~~
_
I~. a
1h WAP
435
434
433
432
]
43
430
THEODOSIUS II (6), PULCHERIA (1) cont.
Class 3a. 430. VOT XXX MVLT XXXxX, Victory holding
long cross.
Obv. As preceding classes.
Rev. VOTXXX MVLTXXXX Same type as last.
440 449g 21mm /“ T-;R-; MIRB “Th. II” V7
Class 4. 442/3. IMP XXXXII COS XVII.P.P. and seated
Constantinopolis T 30; R 232; MIRB “Th. II” 35
Obv. As preceding classes.
Rev. IMPXXXXIICOS* XVII°P*P* Constantinopolis
enthroned |., holding gl. cr. in r. hand and scepter in L.,
shield at |. side, |. foot on prow. In field |., star; in ex.,
COMOB
441 462g 19mm |
442 449g 22mm |
Class 5. 450-3. VICTORIA AVCCC, Victory holding
long cross.
Obv. As preceding classes.
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC and usually officina numeral.
Same type as 437-40, but star to r.; in ex., CONOB
443 Off.B 432g 19mm \ T 32; R—; MIRB
“Marcian” 7
440. Whittemore
441. 48.17.1181; Peirce, from Schulman iii.
443. 48.17.1183; Peirce, bt. in Paris, iii. 1924
444. 67.24; MMAG Basel sale 35, lot 201
Semissis, AV. 414. T 41; R 238; MIRB “Th. II” 43
Obv. AELPVLCH ERIAAVC Bust r.
Rev. Chi-Rho in wreath; beneath, CONOB*
444 2.22¢ 18mm 7 Graffiti on rev.: Vi (?) and M
Tremissis, AV. 414-53. T 42—4; R 239; MIRB “Th. II” 49
Obv. As last.
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, CONOBX*
445 149¢ 15mm \
446 148¢ 14mm |
447 146g 14mm 7
446. 48.17.1187; Peirce
447. 57.4.50; Friend
1931 445. 48.17.1184; Peirce, from Spink xii. 1928
442. Whittemore
PULCHERIA (2), EUDOCIA, and MARCIAN (1)
PULCHERIA (2)
Constantinople (cont.)
Tremissis, AV. Regular type (cont.).
448 148g 15mm
449 149g 14mm \
450 149g 14mm f
451 1.49 g¢ (pierced) 16mm \
Siliqua, AR
Class 1. 414-50. Cross in wreath T 45; R—; MIRB “Th.
II” 69;
Obv. AELPVLCH ERIAAVC Bust r.
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, CONS*¥
452 169g 16mm
Class 2. 450-3. SAL/REI/PHI in wreath (as on Marcian’s
coins) T—; R—; MIJRB “Marcian” 26
Obv. As last.
Rev. SAL/REI/PPI in wreath; beneath, CONS*
453 119g 17mm \
EUDOCIA
Wife of Theodosius II
Augusta 2 January 423 — 20 October 460
All coins were struck at Constantinople and belong to the
two decades 423-42. None are likely to have been struck
after the breakdown of her marriage to Theodosius in 442/
Class 2. 430. VOT XXX MVLT XXXX, same type. This
type/inscr. combination is not matched by one of Theodos-
ius. T 91-2; R—; MIRB “Th. II” 28
Obv. As last.
Rev. As last, but VOTXXX MVLTXXXX
456 Off.B 4.11g 20mm | T-;R-
Class 3. 430-39. Same inscr., seated Constantinopolis. T
87; R—; MIRB “Th. II” 29
Obv. As preceding classes.
Rev. VOTXXX MVLTXXXxX and usually officina nu-
meral. Constantinopolis seated |. w. gl. cr. In r. field, star;
in ex., CONOB
457 Off.€ 447g 20mm \ T-;R-
458 Off.1 442¢ 21mm | T87;R-
Class 4. 442/3. IMP XXXXII COS XVII, same type. T 86;
R 205; MIRB “Th. II” 36
Obv. As preceding classes.
Rev. IMPXXXXIICOS XVII.P.P. Same type as last, w.
CONOB or COMOB in ex.
459 COMOB 4.46g 21mm | T 86; R-
Semissis, AV. 4232 T 93; R—; MIRB “Th. II” 44
Obv. AELEVDO CIAAVC Bust r.
Rev. Chi-Rho in wreath; beneath, CONOB*
460 2.34g 19mm \ Graffito on obv.: K
Tremissis, AV. 423-42. T 94-6; R 203-4; MIRB “Th. II”
3 and subsequent retirement to Jerusalem. The vota on the 50
coins are those of Theodosius. Obv. As last.
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, CONOBX*
Solidus, AV 461 146g 15mm
462 147g 14mm f Graffto on obv.: IIA above
Class 1. 423-29. VOT XX MVLT XXX, Victory holding head.
long cross. T 88-90; R 202; MIRB “Th. II” 20 463 Pellet before CONOB* 1.47g 14mm /
Obv. AELEVDO CIAAVC Bust r.; above, Manus Dei 464 142g 14mm f
holding crown 465 147g 14mm f
Rev. VOTXX MVLTXXX and usually officina nu- 466 132g 13mm |
meral. Victory standing |., holding long cross. In upper 467 1.46 g (plugged) 15 mm f Same obv. die as
field, star; in ex., CONOB 469.
454 Off. B 3.79g 20mm Y Scratches around head 468 141g 14mm |
of Victory, making a kind of radiate crown. T - ; 469 1.50g 15mm | Same obv. die as 467.
R- 470 141g 13mm
455 Off.1 4.22g 21mm | Graffito in rev. |. field 471 145g 14mm \ Grafhu: obv. r. field, ?AN (lig-
(cross) T 90; R 202 atured); rev., X on either side of cross.
472 149¢ 14mm |
448. 46.8; Gans x.1946 458. 56.6.32; Grierson, from Rashleigh sale, 464. Whittemore Loan 53. The Whittemore
449. 47.2.10; Shaw lot 163; from Glendining 28.ix.1942, lot coins no doubt represent a hoard, or some
450. Whittemore 62 part of one. It is unfortunate that nothing
451. Whittemore 459. 48.17.1174; Peirce is known of it, for a hoard consisting only
452. 71.14; MMAG Basel sale 43, 12.xi.1970, 460. 57.18; “Foreign Ambassador” sale, lot 463 or even mainly of fractional gold is un-
lot 527 461. 57.4.48; Friend usual and would have been put together
453. 67.25; MMAG Basel sale 35, 16.vi.1967, 462. 48.17.1179; Peirce, from Platt iv.1929 only under exceptional circumstances.
lot 202 463. 48.17.1177; Peirce, from Raymond 465. Whittemore Loan 54
454. 56.6.31; Grierson, from Spink 1945, ex ii. 1930 466. Whittemore Loan 55
Grantley 2439 467. Whittemore Loan 56
455.
456.
457.
57.4.116; Friend
48.17.1172; Peirce
56.6.33; Grierson, from Spink 1945, ex
Leigh Ashton; bt Constantinople
. Whittemore Loan 57
. Whittemore Loan 58
. Whittemore Loan 59
. Whittemore Loan 60
. Whittemore
PLATE 18
PULCHERIA (2)—MARCIAN (1)
453
452
9 450 451
44
448
459
458
457
6
45
455
454
475
474
473
472
9 470 471
r
468
PULCHERIA (2)—MARCIAN (1) cont.
Siliqua, AR. 423-. Cross in wreath. T 98-9; R-—; PCR
111.1598 (as 430); MIRB “Th. II” 70
Obv. As last.
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, CONS*
473 1.52g 17mm 7 Inscr. blundered by double-
striking.
474 149g 19mm fT
AE 3. 423—. Empress enthroned. T-; R-—; LRBC 2230;
MIRB “Th. II” 80
Obv. As last.
Rev. CONCOR DIAAVC Empress enthroned facing,
arms folded on breast, w. Manus Dei holding crown above.
In |. field, star; in ex., CONS
475 Obv. inscr. starts AL; mm. off flan 1.67 g 13
mm
MARCIAN
25 August 450 — 27 January 457
The coins are of Constantinople unless otherwise indicated.
Solidus, AV.
Class 1. 450. Without frontal ornament on helmet, as
under Theodosius II; Victory holding long cross. T — ; R-
473. 48.17.1180; Peirce, from Andronikos
x.1928
474. Whittemore
475. 48.17.1126; Peirce
476. Whittemore Loan 62
477. 48.17.1188; Peirce
Obv. DNMARCIA NVSPFAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing, helmet without frontal ornament.
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC (no officina numeral). Vic-
tory standing |. holding long cross; in r. field, star; in ex.,
CONOB
476 447g 21mm \ A faint stroke above the lower
loop of the last two C’s in CCC almost turns them
into G's.
Class 2. 450; MIRB 3. Marriage solidus, helmet w. frontal
ornament and three standing figures (Christ in center) as
reverse type. Not represented. See above, p. 158.
Class 3. 450-7; MIRB 13. As Class 1, but helmet w. frontal
ornament.
Obv. As Class 1, but frontal aigrette (trefoil) on helmet.
Rev. As Class 1, but w. officina numeral.
477 Off.B 4.51g 21mm \ T3;R212
478 Off. 4 449g 20mm \ T6;R214
478. 56.6.34; Grierson 1936, from Seaby
23.xi.1946
MARCIAN 450-7 (2)
Constantinople (cont.)
Solidus, AV (cont.). As 477 f.
479 Off.€ 447g 21mm \ T7; R215
480 Off.S 450g 20mm | T8; R216
481 Off.Z 449g 20mm \ T9;R217
482 Off.H 440g 20mm | T10;R218
483 Off.1 434g 20mm \ T 13; R220
484 Off.1 450g 21mm | T 13; R220
Semissis, AV; MIRB 9
Obv. DNMARCIA NVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORIAAVCC Victory seated r., inscribing
XVXXX on shield; in I. field, star; in lower r. field, Chris-
togram; in ex., CONOB
485 2.22¢ 17mm \ T18;R-
486 Head and shield of Victory break legend 2.50 g
19mm | cf.T18;R-
Tremissis, AV; MIRB 13
Obv. As last.
Rev. VICTORIAAVCVSTORVM Victory advancing r.,
looking back, holding wreath and gl. cr.; in r. field, star; in
ex., CONOB
487 Rev. inscr. unbroken 1.47 g 15.5 mm L T 20;
R 225
488 Wreath and head of Victory break rev. inscr.
149g 155mm f T 19v; R 224v
489 Head of Victory breaks rev. legend 1.50 g
(nicked) 15mm f T 19; R224
Siliqua, AR
Class 1. VOT MVLT XXXX on rev. T 25; R—; MIRB 32.
The rev. inscr. is meaningless in the context of Marcian’s
reign, and probably results from the reuse of an old die of
Theodosius II
Obv. As last.
Rev. VOT/MVLT/XXXX in wreath; beneath, CONS*
490 150g 18mm |
Class 2. SAL REI PHI (for Salus Retpublicae) on rev. T 23;
R 227; MIRB 25
Obv. As last.
Rev. SAL/REI/PHPI in wreath; beneath, CONS*
AE 4. Monogram in wreath. MIRB 29
Obv. DNMARCIANVSPFAVC, in some form. Bust r.
(pearl diadem).
Rev. Monogram in wreath; beneath, CON
Monogram references are in LRBC p. 110, and Adelson
and Kustas 1962 (abbreviated AK), p. 89
494 JAR VSP[ Monog. PR (LRBC monog. 2v; AK
monog. 5v) 123g 9mm | T-;R-; cf.
LRBC 2248; cf. AK 64/359-61
495 Monog. PR (LRBC monog. 4; AK monog. 9)
101g 12mm | T-; R 228; LRBC 2249; cf.
AK 65/376-91
496 DNMARCI[ Monog. as last. 0.60 g 10mm \
Refs. as last.
497 Monog. pe (LRBC monog. 7; AK monog. 1)
1.53 g 11mm / T 26; R 229; cf. BMC Vand
30/100; LRBC 2250; AK 62/313-19
498 Monog. as 497. 109g 10mm | Refs. as last.
499 J|NMARCIANVSP{, the R oversized. Monog. as
last. 132g 11mm J Refs. as 497.
500 DNMARCIANVS[ JA[ Monog. as last 1.29 g 11
mm f Refs. as 497.
501 DNMARCIANVSPF[ Monog. as last 0.93 g 11
mm {7 Refs. as 497.
502 DNMARCIANVSPFAV[ Monog. as last 1.11 g
11mm f Refs. as 497.
503 Traces of letters. Monog. as last 0.50 g 10 mm
| Refs. as 497.
*
DNMARCIANV[ Monog. PSB (LRBC monog.
9; AK monog.—) 149g 10mm 7 T-;R-;
cf. BMC Vand 30/98; cf. LRBC 1880 (Thessalon-
ica).
504
Thessalonica
Light miliarense, AR. Emperor standing facing. MIRB 28.
Obv. DNMARCIA NVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. CLORORV STERRRHR Emperor standing fac-
ing, looking |., holding spear in r. hand and resting |. on
shield; in |. field, star; in ex., TESOP
505 428g 22mm | T-;R- The lettering and
spelling on the rev. are poor, w. initial C, I omit-
491 150g 18mm | ted in ORVIS, three successive Rs in TERRR, the
492 159g 17.5mm | (R227, this coin). A w. the form of H, and the B in TESOB lacking
493 1.15 (chipped) 16mm | a lower loop. But the coin is certainly genuine.
479. Whittemore Loan 61 488. Whittemore Loan 64 497. 48.17.1195; Peirce
480. Whittemore 489. Whittemore 498. 48.17.1196; Peirce, from Schulman
481. 48.17.1189; Peirce, from Andronikos 490. Whittemore xi. 1932, olim Lincoln
482. 56.6.35; Grierson, from Baldwin 491. Whittemore 499. 48.17.1198; Peirce
27.xi.1950 492. 48.17.1194; Peirce, from Ratto sale 500. 48.17.1201; Peirce
483. 57.4.49; Friend 9.xii. 1930, lot 227 501. 48.17.1205; Peirce
484. Whittemore Loan 63 493. Whittemore Loan 65 502. 69.70; Fred Baldwin sale, lot 460
485. 48.17.1191; Peirce, ex Schulman 494. 56.13.81; Grierson 1956, from Baldwin 503. Whittemore
29. 11.1929 20.11.1947 504. Whittemore
486. Whittemore 495. 48.17.1197; Peirce 505. 64.8; MMAG Basel sale 28, 19.vi.1964, lot
487. 48.17.1192; Peirce, from Platt x.1928 496. 48.17.1203; Peirce 512
PLATE 19
MARCIAN (2)
9 480 481 489 483 484
47
]
49
490
489
488
487
486
485
499
MARCIAN (2) cont.
Nicomedia
AE 4. Same inscr. and type as 494-504, but NIC as mint-
mark.
506 JMARCIANVSFA[ Monog. PSR (RBC monog.
4; AK monog.9) 0.88 g 9mm | T 27; R 230;
cf. BMC Vand. 30/102; LRBC 2465 (or 2466 or
2468).
507 ‘Traces of letters. Monog. PSR (LRBC monog.
2v; AK monog. 5v) 1.21 g 10mm / Refs. as
last, LRBC 2465 (or var.).
Uncertain Eastern Mints
AE 4. Same as last, but mint-marks uncertain.
of
508 JIAN[ Monog. PSR (LRBC monog. 7; AK
monog. 1) 1.19g 10mm 7/7 cf. BMC Vand 30/
100
509 JPFAVC Monog. PR (LRBC monog. 4; AK
monog. 9) 1.42 g 12mm Tf
510 Cross in upper circle of wreath. Monog. PS
Fiat monog. 4; AK monog. 9) 0.97 g 13 mm
511 DNM[ Monog. PR (LRBC monog. 5; AK
monog. —) 1.19g 10mm / cf. BMC Vand 30/
100
512 MARCIANVS[ JAVC Monog. PRR (LRBC
monog. 5; AK monog. —) 1.38g 13mm \ T-;
cf. R 228; cf. BMC Vand 30/102; LRBC —; AK-
506. 48.17.1206; Peirce, from SLCC vii.1929
507. 48.17.1207; Peirce, from Raymond 1928
508. 56.23.2535; Bertelé
509. 48.17.1204; Peirce, from Raymond 1928
511. Whittemore
510. 71.25.2; Grierson 16.11.1971, ex Longuet
512. 48.17.1208; Peirce, from Raymond 1928
Western Mints
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. Emperor and human-headed serpent. Issued
according to Lacam under Valentinian III, 450/5.
Obv. DNMARCIA NVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVGGG Emperor standing facing,
holding long cross in r. hand and Victory on globe in L., r.
foot on head of human-headed serpent; in field, R V; in
ex., COMOB
513 3.99 g(worn) 20mm | T 16; R-; illus. (x 2)
Lacam pl. 30 Class I.1, (x 4) pl. 31, (x 10) pl.
32 (pp. 122-3).
Milan
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. Issued, according to Lacam,
under Avitus.
Obv. DNMARCIAN VSPIIIAVG Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, CONOB
514 1.46 g (cut) 13mm \ T 22; R 226; UB pl.
x.101; illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 41, Type B.1 (pp.
148, 150).
513. 71.13; MMAG Basel sale 43, 12.xi.1970,
lot 523
514. 48.17.1193; Peirce
LEO I (1)
7 February 457 — 30(?) January 474
Constantinople
Aureus (1/60th Ib.), AV. 457(?). Victory advancing |. T —;
R—; MIRB 1
Obv. DNLEOPE RPETAVC Bearded bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. VICTOR IA ROMANORVM Victory advancing
|., holding wreath and palm; in |. field, Christogram; in r.
field, star; in ex., CONOB
515 533g 24mm \
Solidus, AV.
Class 1. 457-73. Victory holding long cross. T 3-13;
R 240-50; MIRB 3
Obv. DNLEOPE RPETAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC and officina letter. Victory
standing |. holding long cross; in r. field, star; in ex.,
CONOB
516 Off. A 4.50g 19mm \ Obv.: second P in
PERPET reversed. T 3; R 240 (P normal in both
cases).
517 Off.B 448g 21mm | T4; R241
518 Off.f 442g 20mm | T5; R242
519 Off. [ 2.50 g (badly clipped) 17 mm \ Same
refs. as last.
520 Off. 4 446g 20mm | Scratched on rev., |.
field T 6; R 243
521 Off. 4 450g 20mm | Same refs. as last.
522 Off.A 447g 20mm | Same refs. as 520.
523 Off. A 4.44g 21mm \ Same refs. as 520.
524 Off.€ 441g 20mm | T7; R244
525 Off.S 447g 19mm | T8; R245
526 Off. Z 4.46g 20mm \ Second P in PERPET
changed from F T 9; R 246
527 Off.H 445g 20mm | T 11; R248
528 Off.6 4.44¢ 20mm | T 12; R249
Class 2. 458(?). Consular issue. T—; R—; MIRB 2
Obv. DNLEOPERPETAVC Bust |., bearded, wearing
consular costume, holding mappa and cross-scepter.
Rev. VICTORIA AAVCCC Emperor seated facing,
nimbate, wearing consular costume, holding mappa and
cross-scepter. In I. field, star; in ex., CONOB
530 449g 21mm J Same dies as 531.
531 4.50g 21mm | Same dies as 530. Traces of
overstriking on obv. and rev.
Class 3. 470-1. Leo I and the Caesar Patricius. T 1; R-;
MIRB 11
Obv. DNLEOPE RPETAVC Armored bust, three-
quarters facing.
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICAEC (C right-angled, not
rounded). Small figure standing on a low podium, crowned
and nimbate, wearing chlamys w. tablion; in r. hand, gl. cr.
In r. field, star; in ex., CONOB
532 446g 21mm | The Cat the end of the rev.
inscr. stands for Caesar.
Class 4. Oct. 473 — Jan. 474. Leo I with Leo II as Caesar.
T 2; R-—; PCR II1.1623; MIRB 12
Obv. As 516-29.
Rev. SALVSREI RVBLICAEC Leo I and Leo II, nim-
bate, enthroned facing, each holding globe; above, cross
surmounted by star; in ex., CONOB
533 448g 20mm | The Cat the end of the rev.
inscr. stands for Caesar.
Class 5. Leo I with Leo II as augustus, Jan. 474. Victory
reverse. T-—;R-—
Obv. and Rev. as 516-29, but rev. inscr. with CCCC, the
fourth C for Leo II, instead of three C’s and and officina
numeral.
534 439g 20mm | Graffito (II) in obv. r. field,
and scratches on rev. |. field. N (of DN) recut on
529 Off.1 446g 20mm | T 13; R250 obv.
515. 79.19; Bank Leu sale 22, 8.v.1979, lot 421 521. Whittemore 529. Whittemore Loan 70
516. Whittemore 522. 48.17.1211; Peirce, from SLCC vii.1929 530. 67.1; Bank Leu 25.i.1967, from a recent
517. 48.17.1209; Peirce, from Bourgey 1ii.1924 523. Whittemore Loan 67 hoard
518. 56.6.36; Grierson, from Baldwin 524. 48.17.1212; Peirce, from SLCC vii. 1928 531. Whittemore
14.vi. 1947 525. 48.17.1213; Peirce, acq. ili.1924 532. 56.9; Bellinger, bt. in Athens in 1926
519. Whittemore 526. Whittemore Loan 68 533. 57.19; “Foreign Ambassador” sale, lot 485
520. 48.17.1210; Peirce, from Andronikos 527. Whittemore Loan 69
1920 528. Whittemore Loan 71
534. 56.6.37; Grierson, from de Falco 10.iii.
1955
PLATE 20
LEO I (1)
titre seses Ne
ve Ly
‘ AY = 4 ay .
531
530
532
529
528
Constantinople (cont.)
Semissis, AV. T 17-18; R 254; MIRB 5
Obv. DNLEOPE RPETAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORIAAVCC Victory seated on cuirass r., in-
scribing XVXXX on shield; in I. field, star, in r., Christo-
gram; in ex., CONOB
535 2.23¢ 18mm 7
536 250g 18mm |
537 CONOR 2.50g 18mm /
Tremissis, AV. T 20-1; R 256; MIRB 7
Obv. As 535-7
Rev. VICTORIAAVCVSTORVM Victory advancing r.,
looking backward, holding wreath in r. hand and gl. cr. in
l.; in r. field, star; in ex., CONOB
538 135g 14mm J Obv.: r. field, graffito (in-
verted A with line through), |. field, long scratch.
Rev.: heavily scratched.
539 1.46 g¢ (pierced) 14mm |
540 141g 13mm 7
541 1.29g 13mm J
542 CONOB (or ?R) 1.49g 14mm \ Obv.:
scratches and pitting. Rev.: gash.
543 CONOB (or ?R) 1.49g 15mm | Scratches on
obv.
544 VICTORIAAVCVSTORVI 146g 14mm |
545 VICTORIAAVCVSTORVN 1.50g 14mm |
546 VICTORIAAVCVSCTVM 1.50g 14mm |
547 NLEOPV PVETAVC; VICTO RIAAVCV
STORVI, COMOB Star is six-pointed. 1.49 g 14
mm / Barbarous, of uncertain attribution.
Heavy miliarense, AR. T—; R—; MIRB 18c
Obv. As 535—47, but bust bearded.
Rev. GLORIAR OMANORVM_ Emperor, nimbate,
standing facing, looking |., holding spear in r. hand and
resting I. on shield. In I. field, star; in ex., CONOB
LEO I (2)
Light miliarense, AR. T-—; R—; MIRB 19b
Obv. As 548, but head turned I.
Rev. As last, but emperor raises r. hand and holds globe
in |., and in ex., CON
549 436g 22mm |
Siliqua, AR. SAL/REI/PHI in wreath; T 24—6; R 261;
MIRB 20
Obv. As 535-47
Rev. SAL / REI / PHI (for Salus Retpublicae) in wreath;
beneath, CONS*
550 1.06g 16mm |
551 0.50 g (chipped) 15mm |
552 DNLEOP RETAVC 0.98 g 16mm / Cracked.
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV
Normal type (Victory holding long cross).
Obv. and Rev. As 516-29, but THSOB in ex.
Class 1. One star in rev. field. T—; R 251; MIRB 15
553 437g 20mm \
554 ~~ Rev. inscr. ends CCC* 4.37 g 22mm |
Class 2. Two stars in rev. field. T 14; R—; MIJRB 16
555 449¢ 20mm |
Consular issue
Obv. and Rev. As 530-1, but THSOB in ex.
Class 1. One star in field, unbroken obv. inscr. T 15;
R 252; MIRB 13
556 4.09¢ 20mm /
557 G's instead of C’s in inscriptions 3.50 g (clipped)
19mm /
558 445g 205mm /
548 5.21 g 24mm \ Scratches on obv. r. field.
Unique? The use of CONOB is anomalous on a Class 2. Two stars in field, obv. inscr. broken PE RP. T 16;
silver coin, and there is no gold denomination for R—; MIRB 14
which the type would have been appropriate. 559 437g 20mm |
535. 48.17.1222; Peirce, from Spink iii.1929 544. 47.2.13; Shaw 552. 58.188; Istanbul bazaar, 30.ix.1958
536. Whittemore 545. Whittemore 553. 48.17.1216; Peirce, from Spink iii.1929
537. 48.17.1221; Peirce, from Cuzzi sale, lot 546. Whittemore 554. 55.5.2; MMAG Basel 24. 111.1955
1194 547. Whittemore Loan 74 555. 55.5.1; MMAG Basel 24. iii. 1955
538. Whittemore Loan 72 548. 85.7; Sternberg sale 16, 15.xi.1985, lot 556. 48.17.1219; Peirce, acq. in Paris iii. 1924
539. Whittemore Loan 75 363 557. Whittemore
540. Whittemore Loan 77 549. 79.20; Bank Leu sale 22, 8.v. 1979, lot 422 558. 48.17.1218; Peirce, from Andronikos
541. 48.17.1224; Peirce, from Andronikos 550. 48.17.1226; Peirce, from Andronikos 559. 48.17.1217; Peirce
542. Whittemore Loan 73 x.1928
543. 47.2.12; Shaw 551. Whittemore
PLATE 21
LEO I (2)
l
54
540
539
547
546
545
544
543
542
Constantinople
AE 2
Class 1. VIRTVS EXERCITI (blundered), Emperor
spurning captive. T 30; R—; LRBC 2252 (as I’, but recte
E); MIRB 23
Obv. DNLEONI SPPAAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VIRTVS EXRCITI Emperor to r., holding stan-
dard and globe, spurning captive. In ex., CONE
560 582g 21mm 4
Class 2. SALVSREI PVBLICAE (blundered), Emperor
spurning captive. T 28; R—; LRBC 2255 (RPVRLICA);
MIRB 24
Obv. As 560, but DNLEOPE RPET[AC?]
Rev. As 560, but SALVSR PVRLCA and, in ex., CON.
561 3.75g 19mm |
Constantinople or elsewhere
AK = Adelson and Kustas 1962
AE 4
Class 1. Monogram. T 35; R 268; BMC Vand 31/110-17
(no mm.); cf. LRBC 2262-4 (monog. lv); AK 70—2/509-
10 (monog. 1); MJRB 28
Obv. DNLEOSPFAVGC, or variant. Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Monogram KE in wreath; beneath, CON
(a) CON legible in whole or in part
562 NLEO[ JPTAV; mm. CON 1.36g 10mm f
563 DNLEO[; mm. JN 1.29g 11mm fT
(b) KVZ (Cyzicus) LRBC 2612-13; MIRB 40
564 DN[{;mm. KVZ 0.88 g 9mm Tf
(c) Mint-mark illegible
565 ‘Traces of letters 1.45g 12mm f
566 JONSPP[ 1.12g 10mm |
567 PPI 1.19¢g 9mm |
568 Obverse obscure 109g 9mm |
569 No letters legible 1.50 g 10mm Tf
570 = Traces of letters 0.74 g 10mm Tf
Class 2. Emperor and captive. T 31; R 265; LRBC 2265-
6, 2268; AK 76-7/705-38; MIRB 29
Obv. DNL EO or variant. Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Emperor, in military dress, standing r., holding long
cross in r. hand, |. hand on head of captive. In |. field, star;
in ex., CON or CN
560. 56.13.83; Grierson, from Spink 2.v.1945,. 569. Whittemore
LEO I (3)
571 jJEO;mm.CN 1.05g 12mm f
572 DNL EO; mm.C[ 0.96g llmm |
Class 3. Crouching lion.
Obv. DNLEOPFAVC or variant. Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Lion crouching |. in traces of wreath; beneath, mm.
Constantinople
Mm. CON. T 40-1; R 267; LRBC 2266; MIRB 27
573 JNLEOPFAV[ 1.25g 9mm |
574 jLEOPFAV[ 1.27g 11mm f
575 |LEOPFAVC 1.04g 10mm f
576 jJAVC 1.12g 10mm fT
577 j)LEOPFA[ 149g 10mm |
Nicomedia
Mm. NIC. Cf. LRBC 2470; MIRB 36
578 Traces of letters 0.58 g 8mm f
Antioch
Mm. ANT. Cf. LRBC 2813; MIRB 42
579 JLEP[; beneath JNTB 1.43 g 10mm <—
Mint-mark Illegible
580 DNLEOPEAVC 1.76g 9mm ?f
581 JPETAVC 0.90g 9mm f
Class 4. Empress standing with transverse scepter. T 32;
R 266; LRBC 2272-5; AK 77-81/740-885; MIRB 30
Obv. DNLEO, DNLEOSPFAVG, or variant. Bust r. (pear]
diadem).
Rev. Empress wearing crown with pendilia, standing
with gl. cr. in r. hand and transverse scepter in |.; in field,
b E (for Berina, i.e., Verina).
582 jEO 0.96g 12mm |
583 DNLEO 1.13 g 10mm |
584 DNLEO 1.46g ll mm ¥Y
585 DN[ 1.06g llmm |
586 ‘Traces of letters 1.00 g 11mm |
578. 56.23.2432; Bertelé
ex Seltman 570. 56.13.89; Grierson 1956, from Baldwin 579. 48.17.1230; Peirce
561. 68.13; Blom 31.vii.1968 (list 43, no. 400) 20.11.1947 580. 48.17.1227; Peirce
562. 48.17.1235; Peirce 571. 58.6; Seaby 18.11.1958 581. 56.13.92; Grierson, from Seaby
563. 60.47; Grierson 3.i11.1960 572. 56.13.84; Grierson 1956, from Baldwin 20.ix.1945, ex Grantley 2777
564. 71.25.4; Grierson 16.iii.1971, ex Longuet 20.11.1947 582. 56.13.85; Grierson, from Baldwin
coll. 573. 48.17.1229; Peirce 20.11.1947
565. 56.13.88; Grierson 1956, from Seaby 574. 48.17.1228; Peirce, from Raymond 1928 583. 56.13.86; Grierson, from Seaby
17.x.1945, ex Grantley 2777 575. 56.13.90; Grierson, from Baldwin 20.ii. 20.ix.1945, ex Grantley 2777
566. 48.17.1236; Peirce 1947 584. 48.17.1231; Peirce
567. 48.17.1237; Peirce, from Raymond(?) 576. 71.25.3; Grierson 16.iii.1971, ex Longuet 585. 56.13.87; Grierson, from Seaby
1928 coll.
17.x.1945, ex Grantley 2777
568. 71.25.5; Grierson 16.ii1.1971, ex Longuet 577. 56.13.91; Grierson, from Seaby 586. 48.17.1232; Peirce
coll. 20.ix.1945, ex Grantley 2777
LEO I (3) PLATE 22
LEO I (3) cont.
Western types
Rome
Solidus, AV. 457-67 (so Lacam). Profile bust, emperor and
human-headed serpent. T 45v; R 253; illus. (x 2) Lacam
pl. 99.2, Type 2.3 (p. 371).
Obv. DNLEOPERPE TVVSAVC (C with downward
stroke) Bust r. (rosette diadem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Emperor standing facing,
holding long cross in r. hand and gl. cr. in 1., r. foot on head
of human-headed serpent; in field, R M; in ex., COMOB
587 438g 20mm |
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. T 47v; R 257; UB pl. M.e;
illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 102, var. 2.1 (p. 379).
Obv. DNLEOPER PETAVC Bust r. (rosette diadem).
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, COMOB
588 144g 14mm
Milan
Solidus, AV.
Class 1. 457-67. Profile bust, emperor and human-
headed serpent.
Obv. As 587, but DNLEOPE RPETVAVC
Rev. As 587, but in field M D
587. 56.6.38; Grierson, from de Falco
9.ix.1948
588. 48.17.1225; Peirce, from Page
589. 67.35.1; ex Ulrich-Bansa 20.vi.1967
590. 67.35.2; ex Ulrich-Bansa 20.vi.1967
591. 67.35.3; ex Ulrich-Bansa 20.vi.1967
589 441g 20mm 7 T 43v; R—; UB pl. xm1.131;
illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 101, Type A, var. 1.1 (p.
378).
590 Rev. VICTORIA AVCCC 4.41 g 21mm f
T 43; R—; UB pl. xm1.132-3; illus. (x 2) Lacam
pl. 101, Type B.1 (p. 378).
Class 2. 467-74. Facing bust, Victory holding long cross.
Obv. DNLEOPE R PETAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC. Victory standing |., holding
long cross; in field, M D; in ex., COMOB.
591 432g 21mm f T—;R-; UB pl. xi.134
(this coin); illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 128, Milan, var.
1.1 (p. 495).
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. 467-74
Class 2. Facing bust, Victory holding long cross.
Obv. As 591, but DNLEOPE RPETAVC
Rev. As 591, but A for A and no letters in field.
592 413g 19mm | T-;R--; illus. (x 2) Lacam
pl. 128, Rome, var. 1.1 (p. 496).
592. 56.6.39; Grierson, from Florange
10.11.1953
VERINA, LEO II and ZENO, ZENO (1), ARIADNE,
and BASILISCUS
All coins are of Constantinople except 605.
VERINA 457-84
Wife of Leo I. Her coins were probably all struck during
his reign, between 457 and 474.
Solidus, AV. Victory holding long cross. T 51—5; R 270;
MIRB “Leo I” 3
Obv. AELYUERI NAAVC Diademed bust r.; above,
Manus Dei holding crown.
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC sometimes with officina nu-
meral. Victory standing |. holding long cross; in r. field,
star; in ex., CONOB
593 No off. numeral 4.49 g (pierced) 20mm |
T 55; R 270
594 Off. numeral 04.39 g 20mm | T54;R-
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. T 56; R 271; MIRB “Leo I”
10
Obv. AELYUERI NAAVC Diademed bust r.
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, CONOB*
595 148g 14mm f
596 1.35 g (pierced) 14mm \
597 149g 14mm 7
AE 2. Victory seated r. T 57-8; R 272; LRBC 2253; MIRB
“Leo I” 25
Obv. AELYUER INAAVC Diademed bust r.
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICAE Victory seated r., inscrib-
ing Chi-Rho on shield; in ex., CONE
598 594g 20mm
LEO II and ZENO
9 February — November 474
Solidus, AV
Class 1. Victory holding long cross. T 4; R—; MIRB 2
Obv. DNLEOETZ ENOPPAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Victory standing |. holding
long cross; in r. field, star; in ex., CONOB
599 444g 20mm |
Class 2. Two seated emperors. T 1-3; R 273; MIRB 1
Obv. As Class 1.
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICAE and usually officina nu-
meral. Leo II (small) and Zeno (larger), both nimbate, en-
throned facing, each holding scroll(?), with cross above
throne; in upper field, star; in ex., CONOB
600 No off. numeral 4.47 g 20mm Y/Y Letters LE
and ETZ recut, seemingly only to make letters
larger T 3; R 273v
601 Off. A 3.05 g (cut down, evidently after having
been mounted) 18 mm | Z scratched on obv. l.
field T-;R-
602 Off.4 446g 20mm “Y T-;R-
603 Off.Z 450g 20mm | T-.R-
ZENO
First reign, November 474 — 9 January 475
AE 2. Emperor spurning captive.
Obv. DNZENORPPEAC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. CJONO[L JUsWRO Emperor standing r., holding
globe in |. hand and long cross in r., spurning captive.
604 539g 20 mm T-; R—-; Grierson 1948, 224
no. 2 (this coin); LRBC 2277; Belova 1941, 327, 2
and 3; Belova’s no. 2 = Anokhin 1977, 156 no.
309; MIRB 23
Uncertain Mint
AE 4. Emperor standing, holding long cross and globe.
Obv. |FNI[ Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Emperor, nimbate, in military costume, standing
facing, holding long cross in r. hand, and globe in |. Up-
ward on |., ZE, on r., NO.
605 0.99¢g ll mm Y/Y Grierson 1948, 226 no. 3 (as
unicum, but cf. T 35) = LRBC 2278 = MIRB 27
(as Nicomedia).
ARIADNE 474-515
Wife of Zeno and subsequently of Anastasius I. Her coins
are probably all of 474-5.
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. T 71-2; R-—; MIRB “Zeno”
17
Obv. AELARI [AD]NEAVC Diademed bust r.
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, CONOBX*
606 CONO[ 1.32 g 14mm 7
593. Whittemore 599. 56.6.42; Grierson, from de Falco 605. 56.13.100; Grierson, from Baldwin
594. 55.20; MMAG Basel 28.xi.1955 10.1.1951 20.11.1947
595. 56.6.40; Grierson, ex Berghaus 600. 48.17.1239; Peirce, from Andronikos 606. 66.1; Spink 7.1.1966; “fd off Caesarea in
21.viii.1952, ex Frau Kruger 601. 57.4.52; Friend the sea”
596. 57.4.51; Friend 602. 56.6.41; Grierson, from Seaby 2.iii.1953
597. Whittemore 603. Whittemore
598. 69.71; ex Fred Baldwin sale, lot 463; ... 604. 56.13.97; Grierson, from Baldwin
ex C. Robert coll.: fd. nr. Sebastopol 1856 11.xi.1947
(see above, p. 170)
PLATE 23
VERINA—BASILISCUS (1)
611
610
609
608
607
VERINA—BASILISCUS (1) cont.
BASILISCUS
9 January 475 — August 476
Solidus, AV. Victory holding long cross. T 73-9; R 298-
302; MIRB |
Obv. DNbASILIS CHSPPAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC and usually officina numeral.
Victory standing I., holding long cross; in r. field, star; in
ex., CONOB
607 No off. numeral 4.49 g 21mm \ T 79; R302
608 Off. A 444g 20mm Y T-;R-
609 Off.B 449g 21mm | T73;R-
610. 48.17.1257; Peirce
611. Whittemore
612. 48.17.1258; Peirce
607. 48.17.1259; Peirce
608. 56.6.48; Grierson, from Glendining sale
15.iv. 1946, lot 44
56.6.49; Grierson, ex Platt Hall sale II, lot
2205; from Lincoln, 26.viii. 1915
609.
610 Off. € 4.32 g (pierced) 20mm | T 74; R299
611 Off.H 449g 20mm | T76;R-
612 Off.1 438g 20mm | T 78; R-
Tremissis, AV. Victory advancing r. T 82; R 303; M/RB 5
Obv. Inscr. as 607-12. Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORIAAVCVSTORVM Victory advancing r.,
looking backwards, holding wreath in r. hand and gl. cr. in
l. In r. field, star; in ex., CONOB
613 134g 14mm \ Graffito on obv. r. field: A
614 142g 15mm |
615 150g 15mm |
613. 48.17.1261; Peirce
614. 48.17.1262; Peirce, from Egger vi.1929
615. Whittemore
BASILISCUS (2), ZENONIS, and ZENO (2)
BASILISCUS 475-6 (cont.)
Milan
Solidus, AV. Victory holding long cross.
Obv. DNBASILIS CVSPERTAVC Armored bust fac-
ing.
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Victory standing |. holding
long cross; in r. field, star; in ex., *COMOBs
616 440g 21mm f T-;R-; UB-; same rev.
die as PCR III.1633; illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 188,
Type 2.3 (p. 758), as struck under Nepos (Janu-
ary—August 475).
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath.
Obv. DNBASILISCVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, COMOB
617 143g 13mm /“ T-;R-; UB pl. xiv.173-5;
illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 189, Milan, Type 1.1 (p.
762), as struck under Romulus Augustulus (Octo-
ber 475—September 476).
Ravenna
Half siliqua, AR. Tyche of Ravenna. T 87; R-
Obv. DNBASILI SCVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Turreted figure standing |., holding scepter in r.
hand and cornucopia in |., r. foot on prow; in field, R V
618 1.23g 13mm ¥
BASILISCUS and MARCUS
(autumn 475—August 476)
Constantinople
Solidus, AV.
Class 1. Basiliscus w. Marcus as Caesar. Victory holding
long cross. T-—; R-—; MIRB - (cf. 6 for obv.)
Obv. DNbASILISC IETMARCIC Armored bust facing
(tails of diadem curl upward).
Rev. As 616, but CONOB
619 Off. numeral A 3.09 g (clipped) 18mm |
This coin is battered and crumpled, w. black in-
crustations at points on the surface, but despite
the low weight it has every appearance of authen-
ticity.
Class 2. As Class 1, but Marcus as Augustus. T 89-92;
R 305; MIRB 8
Obv. As 619, but insc. DNbASILISCI ETMARCPAVC
Rev. As 619, but insc. VICTOR I AAVCCC
620 Obv. insc.: DNbASILISCI ETMABSPAVC Off.
r 438g 20mm | T 89v; cf. R 305 (same obv.
die, but off. I).
Class 3. Two emperors enthroned. T 88; R—; MIRB 7
Obv. As last.
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICAE and usually officina nu-
meral. Two emperors, nimbate, seated facing, each holding
globe, w. cross above throne; in upper field, star; in ex.,
CONOB
621 Off. A 4.46 g 21 mm
Class 4. Victory holding long cross; tails of diadem curl
downward. T 89-92; R-—; MIRB 8
Obv. As Class 2, but tails of diadem curl downward.
Rev. As 619.
622 Off.B 450g 21mm |
623 Off.€ 4.45¢ 20mm | \X scratched on r. field
T 90v (tails of diadem curl upward); R —
624 Off.1 447g 21mm | T-; R 304v (tails of
diadem curl upward).
Tremissis, AV. Victory advancing r. T 93; R 306; MIRB 10
Obv. DNbASILISCI ETMARCPAVC Bust r. (pearl! dia-
dem).
Rev. VICTORIAAVCVSTORVM Victory advancing r.,
looking backward, holding wreath in r. hand, and gl. cr. in
l.; in r. field, star; in ex., CONOB
625 147g 14mm
626 150g 15mm |
ZENONIS
9 January 475 — August 476
Wife of Basiliscus
Constantinople
Nummus, AE 4. Monogram. Cf. LRBC 2287 note; Adelson
and Kustas 1962, 1043—50; M/RB “Basiliscus” 14; T 96 is
a Cigoi forgery.
Obv. AELZENONISAVC or variant. Diademed bust r.
Rev. Monogram isf , within wreath border.
627 0.65¢g 10mm
ZENO, with the Caesar LEO
Autumn 476-77. On the attribution and date, see above,
pp. 181-2.
Constantinople
Tremissis, AV. Victory advancing r. T 9; R—; MIRB 13
Obv. DNZENOETLEONOVCAES Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem)
Rev. As 625-6, but CONOR
628 148¢ 15mm \
616. 67.37; Crippa 20.x.1967 621. 48.17.1265; Peirce, from Andronikos 626. Whittemore
617. 48.17.1263; Peirce, from Spink viii. 1928 622. Whittemore 627. 56.13.94; Grierson, from Baldwin
618. 56.13.93; Grierson, from Gimbel’s 623. Whittemore Loan 87 30.v.1947
20.vii. 1953 624. 48.17.1267; Peirce, from SLCC viii.1929 628. 48.17.1238; Peirce, from Egger vi.1929
619. 48.17.1266; Peirce, from Andronikos 625. Whittemore Loan 88
620. 57.67.3; Grierson, from Baldwin
14.vi.1947, from Glendining sale
7.ii1.1945, lot 181
PLATE 24
BASILISCUS (2)—ZENO (2)
LIVI EY
SES
633
632
631
630
629
628
BASILISCUS (2)—ZENO (2) cont.
ZENO (restored) 631 Off. 448¢ 19mm Y T 14; R279
August 476 — 9 April 491 632 No frontal trefoil on helmet Off. A 4.47 g¢ 19
mm | T16;R-
Constantinople 633 Off.4 446g 20mm | T 16; R-
Solidus, AV. Victory holding long cross. T 11-24; R 277- 634 No frontal trefoil on helmet Off. € 4.50 g 20
89; MIRB 7 mm / T17;R-
Obv. DNZENO PERPAVC Armored bust three- 635 Off.S 440g 20mm | T 18; R 280
quarters facing; frontal trefoil on helmet. 636 Off.Z 440g 20mm Y T 19; R 281
Rev. As 616, but usually officina numeral, and CONOB 637 Off.Z 4.39¢g 19mm ¥ T 19; R281
629 No frontal trefoil on helmet; B of CONOB in- 638 Off.H 448g 19mm | T 21; R 282
complete. Off. A (recut over [) 4.47 g 20 mm 639 Off. O Same dies as 641; same rev. die as 642.
| T 11; R277 448g 19mm | T 22-3; R 283
630 Off. A (recut over €) 4.46¢ 20mm | T11;
R 277
629. 48.17.1240; Peirce, from Andronikos 634. Whittemore 638. 48.17.1243; Peirce, from Page
630. 48.17.1241; Peirce, from Ciani 635. 56.6.43; Grierson, from Baldwin 639. Whittemore Loan 81
631. 48.17.1242; Peirce, from SLCC x.1931 14.vi. 1947
632. 67.2; Bank Leu 21.1.1967, from a recent 636. 56.4.44; Grierson, from Spink 1945, ex
hoard Capt. Duff coll.
633. Whittemore Loan 80 637. Whittemore Loan 79
Constantinople (cont.)
Solidus, AV (cont.). Victory holding long cross. T 11-24;
R 277—89; MIRB 7
640 Off.6 450g 20mm | T 22-3; R 283
641 Off. 6 Same dies as 639, same obv. die as 642.
4.50 ¢ 20mm | T 22-3; R 283
642 Off. I Same obv. die as 639 and 641. 4.48 g 20
mm /“ T 24; R 284
643 Off. 1 B in CONOB has the appearance of R
4.46 g 20mm | T 24; R 284
Semissis, AV. Victory seated r. T 26; R 291; MIRB 12
Obv. DNZENO PERPAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORIAAVCCC Victory seated r. on cuirass,
inscribing X’s on shield. In I. field, star; in r., Christogram;
in ex., CONOB
644 2.19 g (pierced) 17 mm 4
645 2.50 g (including ring attachment; pierced) 17
mm
Tremissts, AV. Victory advancing r.
Obv. As 644-5.
Rev. VICTORIAAVCVSTORVM Victory advancing r.,
looking backward, holding wreath in r. hand and gl. cr. in
l. In r. or l. field, star; in ex., CONOB
(a) Star in r. field. T 30; R 392; MIRB 14
646 INZENU Cross scratched on obv. r. field. 1.49
13mm |
647 148¢ 13mm |
648 Scratches (graffito?) on obv. r. field. 1.49 g 14
mm /
649 148g 14mm |
650 149g 13mm |
651 VICTORIAAVCVSTORM 1.47g 14mm |
652 VICTORIAAVCSTORIVM 1.50 14mm \ cf.
T 50
ZENO (3)
Siliqua, AR
Class 1. SAL/REI/PVBL (blundered) in wreath. T-—; R-;
Grierson 1948, 233.1 (this coin); MJRB 20
Obv. DNZENO PERPAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. SRI/REI/RVL (i.e., SAL/REI/PVBL blundered) in
wreath; beneath, CONOS*
655 0.92 g (chipped) 16mm /“ T-; R-; Grierson
1948, 233.1 (this coin).
Class 2. VOT/ISMV/LTIS (blundered) in wreath. T 34;
R 297 (this coin); MIJRB 21b
Obv. As last.
Rev. TOV/VIMY/MTI in wreath; beneath, CONS*
656 1.96g 17mm |
Nummus, AE 4. Monogram in wreath. T 36-7; R-—; MIRB
26
Obv. DNZENOPERPAVC in some form. Bust r. (pearl
diadem).
Rev. Monogram in wreath; sometimes CON beneath.
Monogram references are in LRBC, p. 110, and Adelson
and Kustas 1962, p. 89 (abbreviated AK).
657 DNZINOSPMI Monog. NC (LRBC monog. 3)
150g 9mm f T-;R-;LRBC 2281
JPEAVG Monog. §Y* (LRBC monog. lv; AK
monog. 2v) 1.05g 11mm | cf. T 37;R-;
BMC Vand 32/119; cf. LRBC 2279; AK 82/899-—
91]
Traces of letters Monog. RE (LRBC monog. lv;
AK monog. 2v) 0.86 g 9mm 7 Refs. as last.
JNZ[ Same monog. 1.18 g 10mm | Refs. as
last.
661 DNZ[]N[ Same monog. 0.70g 10mm \
Refs. as last.
658
659
660
(b) Star in |. field, blundered legend. Cf. T 49; R 294; 662 ‘Traces of letters Same monog. In ex., ?CO[
MIRB 15 0.85¢ 9mm | Refs. as last.
653 VICTORIAACTSORIVM 1.48g 14mm | T-; 663 JVC Same monog,, partly illegible. 0.63 g 8
R 294 mm / Refs. as last.
654 VICTORIAACTSORAYII 1.34 g 13 mm J
T 49 (same rev. die); R —
640. Whittemore 651. 57.20; “Foreign Ambassador” sale, lot 497 659. 48.17.1254; Peirce, from Andronikos
641. Whittemore 652. Whittemore x.1928
642. Whittemore Loan 78 653. 48.17.1248; Peirce 660. 48.17.1253; Peirce
643. 48.17.1244; Peirce, from SLCC ii.1929 654. 48.17.1245; Peirce 661. 48.17.1255; Peirce, from Andronikos
644. Whittemore Loan 82 655. 56.13.95; Grierson, from MMAG Basel x.1928
645. Whittemore 30.ix.1946 662. 48.17.1256; Peirce, from Andronikos
646. Whittemore Loan 84 656. 48.17.1251; Peirce, from Ratto sale x.1928
647. Whittemore Loan 85 9.xii. 1930, lot 297 663. 56.13.99; Grierson, from Baldwin
648. Whittemore Loan 86 657. Whittemore 20.11.1947
649. Whittemore Loan 76 658. 56.13.98; Grierson, from Seaby
650.
48.17.1246; Peirce, from SLCC viii. 1929
16.vii. 1945
PLATE 25
ZENO (3)
- > —_S
a =) Ye <
j tb =e
Rasa
We SS De
ZENO (3) cont.
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV
Class 1. Victory holding long cross. As 640-3, but T pre-
cedes off. numeral. T 38 (ends Tl); R—; M/RB 8. For the
attribution, see above, p. 184.
664 Off.4 446g 19mm
665 Off. S 4.48 g 20 mm
Class 2. As last, but no T or off. numeral, two stars in field.
T 42; R 285; MIRB 19
664. 66.3; Spink 30.i1i1.1966
665. 76.11; MMAG Basel 4.x.1976
666. 55.24: from Ratto 28.xi.1955
667. 63.1; from Spink 11.11.1963
666 4.42¢ 20mm \
667 431g 20mm |
668 450g 19mm |
Heavy miliarense, AR. Emperor standing facing. T—; R-;
MIRB 22
Obv. DNZENO PERPAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. CLORORV STARRAR Emperor, nimbate, stand-
ing facing, looking I., holding spear in r. hand and resting
1. on shield. In |. field, star; in ex., THSOB
669 450g 20mm \
668. Whittemore
669. Whittemore
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. Victory holding long cross.
Obv.
quarters facing.
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC: Victory holding long cross;
in r. field, star; in ex., *COMOBe
670
DNZENOP ERPFAVC Armored bust three-
Obv.: Z reversed; obv./rev.: A in form of A 4.39
ZENO (4)
(b) With star below M and @® beside leg of Victory
679 445g 20mm f T-;R-; UB pl. xv.162 (this
coin); Lallemand x1.47—50; illus. (x 2) Lacam pl.
216, Type 2.b.3 (p. 911).
680 4.24g 21mm f T-;R-; UB pl. xv.162;
Lallemand x1.47—50; illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 216,
Type 2, var. b.1 (p. 911).
g 20mm | T 44v (no pellets with COMOB);
R-; illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 152, Type 1.1 (p.
620).
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath.
Obv. DNZENO PERPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, COMOB
671
pl. 175, Type 1.1 (p. 696).
Half-siliqua, AR. Tyche of Ravenna. T 60
Obv. DNZENO PERPAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Turreted figure to |. on prow, holding scepter in r.
hand and cornucopia in |.; in field, R V
672 0.87 ¢g 13mm \
673 0.68¢ 13mm |
Milan
“Lallemand” references are to the plates in Lallemand
1965c (Vedrin hoard).
Solidus, AV. Victory holding long cross.
Obv. DNZENO PERPAVC As 670.
145g 12mm \ T-;R--; illus. (x 2) Lacam
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath.
Obv. and Rev. as 671, but different style.
681 AV in obv. inscr. ligatured 1.43 g 14mm |
T 55; R—; UB pl. xv.178—84; cf. Lacam pl. 176,
Type 4.a (p. 701).
Half-siliqua, AR
Class 1. Tyche of Ravenna. T 59; R—; UB pl. xv.186-90
Obv. DNZENO PERPAVC (AV ligatured) Bust r. (pearl
diadem).
Rev. Turreted figure to |., holding scepter in r. hand, and
cornucopia in I., foot on prow; in field, M D
682 0.92g 12mm f
683 1.03g 13mm f Same obv. die as 684.
Class 2. Eagle. T 61; R—; UB pl. xv.191 (p. 341).
Obv. As last.
Rev. Eagle standing r. on prow, looking |., wings un-
furled; above, cross.
684 0.81 g (cracked) 12mm 7 Same obv. die as
683.
Rev. As 670, but in field, M D, in ex., COMOB
(a) Nothing in field apart from M D
Rome
Solidus, AV. Victory holding long cross.
674 VICORI AAVCCC 3.85g 20mm / T-;R-;
illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 162, Group IIb.1 (p. 652). Class 1. Rev. with R at end of inscription.
675 DNZENO P ERPAVC 4.46 g 20mm / T 41;
R-—; UB pl. xiv.156** (this coin) = Lallemand (a) CONOR
vut.13a; illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 163, Group IV, Obv. DNZENO PERPAVC Armored bust three-
Type 1b.1 (p. 660). quarters facing.
676 DNZENO PERPAVC(AV ligatured); VICTOR Rev. VICTORI AAVCCCR Victory standing L., holding
I AAVCCC 4.39 g 20mm f T41; R-; UB long cross; in r. field, star; in ex., CONOR
pl. xrv.158; illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 163, Group IV, 685 441g 20mm | Graffiti: A on obv., |. and r.
Type 2.a.1 (p. 658). fields T- ; R-—; Lallemand 132 no. 1; illus. (x
677 DNZENO PERPAVC(AV ligatured); VICTOR 2) Lacam pl. 222, Class 1, Type 3 (pp. 928-9):
IAAVCCC 4.42 g 20mm 7 T 41; R-; Lalle- “atelier de Théodoric aux environs de Rome.”
mand 1x.24a; illus.(x 2) Lacam pl. 163, Group
IV, Type 2.b.3 (p. 660). (b) Obv. inscr. breaks P E, and COMOB
678 DNZENO PEPRAVC 4.40 g 21mm ff T-; Obv. DNZENOP ERPFAVC As last.
R—; UB pl. x1v.157 = Lallemand 1x.22a; illus. Rev. As last, but COMOB
(x 2) Lacam pl. 164A, Group IV, Series B.b (p. 686 440g 19mm ¥ T-;R--; Lallemand 133 no.
660). 4; illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 223, Class III.1 (p. 930).
670. 62.24; Spink 31.vii.1962, from an Egyptian 676. 67.35.29; Ulrich-Bansa 20.x.1967 684. 69.5; MMAG Basel sale 38, 3.xi.1968, lot
coll. 677. 56.6.45; Grierson, from Seaby 8.xi.1947 681
671. 48.17.1249; Peirce, from SLCC 1i.1929 678. 67.35.28; Ulrich-Bansa 20.x.1967 685. 56.6.46; Grierson, from Baldwin
672. 74.10; Bank Leu sale 10, 29.vi.1974, lot 679. 67.35.32; Ulrich-Bansa 20.x.1967 27.xi.1950
461 680. 67.35.31; Ulrich-Bansa 20.x.1967 686. 59.40; MMAG Basel sale 19, 5.vi.1959, lot
673. 70.23; Kunst und Miinzen A.G. Lugano, 681. 48.17.1250; Peirce, from Spink viii. 1928 279
Asta 4, 23.iv.1970, lot 247
67.35.27; Ulrich-Bansa 20.x. 1967
67.35.30; Ulrich-Bansa 20.x.1967
674.
675.
682.
683.
48.17.1252; Peirce, from SLCC vi.1929
70.22; Kunst und Miinzen A.G. Lugano,
Asta 4, 23.iv.1970, lot 248
PLATE 26
ZENO (4)
=
00
oS
|
— 683 —
ZENO (A) cont.
Rome (cont.)
Class 2. Rev. with T° at end of inscription.
Obv. As last.
Rev. As last, but VICTORI AAVCCC and *COMOBs
687 439g 19mm /Y T-;R--; Lallemand 133,
Class III; illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 194, Class IV,
Type 4.2 (p. 787).
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath.
Obv. DNZ ENO PERPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, COMOB
688 DNSINO PFA 1.43 g (pierced) 13mm |
T-—; R--; illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 175, Type 3 (p.
697).
Follis (40 nummus piece), AE
Obv. IMPZENOFIL[ JOSEN[ Bust r. (pearl diadem),
IIII beneath.
687. 66.4; Spink 30.iii1.1966
688. 56.6.47; Grierson, from Baranowsky
3.ix.1948
689. 56.13.96; Grierson 1956, from MMAG
Basel 21.viii. 1952
Rev. INVICT A ROMA Victory advancing r., holding
wreath and trophy; in field, SC; in ex., «XL»
689 16.30g 27mm 7/7 T 67; R—; BMC Vand 100-
1/1-4; LRBC 877
Arles(?)
Solidus, AV. Victory holding long cross.
Obv. DNIZENO PERPAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing.
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Victory standing l.,
holding long cross; in r. field, star; in ex., COILOB
690 437g 21mm ¥Y T-;R-.
690. 65.8; Hess-Bank Leu sale 5.v.1965, lot
560, from Hess-Bank Leu sale 2.iv.1958,
lot 414
HONORIUS
23 January 393 — 15 August 423
Earliest coinage, 393-5
Constantinople
For the attribution of solidi with SM to Constantinople and
not Sirmium, see above, pp. 119-20, 196.
Solidus, AV. Emperor spurning captive. C 44; RIC 160-2
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTOR IAAVCCC or VICTORI AAVCCC and
usually officina numeral. Emperor standing r., holding la-
barum in r. hand and globe surmounted by Victory in l.,
spurning captive w. |. foot. In field, S M; in ex., COMOB
(a) Rev. inscr. ends CC and breaks R-—IA
691 Obv. reads DNHONORI — IVSPFAVG, Le., w. I
accidentally repeated, and rev. ends AVCC No
off. numeral 4.43 g 21 mm f C 44 var.; RIC
161/12(d)1. The error in the spelling of Honorius’
name dates this to early 393, the reverse die, with
CC instead of CCC, being carried over from the
joint reign of Theodosius and Arcadius.
(b) Rev. inscr. ends CCC and breaks R—-IA
692 Off. X\ 3.91g 19mm | RIC 161/14(d)5
(c) Rev. inscr. ends CCC and breaks RI-—A
693 Off. A 445g 20mm \ RIC 162/15(d)1
694 Off. 4.46¢g 20mm | RIC 162/15(d)-
695 Off. H 4.49 g (pierced) 20mm \ RIC 162/
15(d)7
696 Off. 1 4.47g 20mm f RIC 162/15(d)9
AE 2. Emperor standing w. labarum and globe C 20
Obv. DNHONORIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. GLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor standing fac-
ing, looking r., holding labarum and globe. In ex., mm.
697 CONSA 3.84 g 20mm \ RIC 236/88(c)1;
LRBC 2188
AE 4. Victory dragging captive I.
Obv. DNHONORIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICAE Victory w. trophy on
shoulder, dragging captive |. In 1. field, Christogram; in ex.,
mm.
698 CONSA 0.70 g 12mm | C 22; RIC 236/
90(c)1; LRBC 2194
699 CONSB 1.16g 12mm — SALVSREI[ Refs. as
last, but CONSB not recorded in RIC
700 CONS[ DNHONORIVS[ 0.93 g 12mm ¢
Refs. as last, but off. numeral illegible.
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. Constantinopolis seated, AVGGG. C 7; RIC
188/64g
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. CONCORDI AAVGGG Constantinopolis seated
facing, looking r., holding spear and globe, w. r. foot on
prow. In ex., COMOB
701 4.43 g 21mm f For the date (393-5) and at-
tribution to Thessalonica, see above, pp. 196-7.
Heraclea
AE 2. As 697, but Heraclea mm.
702 SMHA 4.62 g 20mm \\ RIC 199/27(c)1; LRBC
1988
Cyzicus
AE 3. Emperor on horseback. C 23; RIC 247/29(c); LRBC
2576
Obv. DNHONORIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. GLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor on horseback
r., holding up r. hand. In ex., mm.
703 SMKB 2.11 g 15mm f RIC 247/29(c)2
704 SMKI 2.03 g 16mm 7 RIC 247/29(c)3
705 SMKI 1.81 g 16mm 7/7 Refs. as last.
Nicomedia
AE 2. As 697, but Nicomedia mm.
706 SMNI 4.64g 21mm | RIC 263/46c.1; LRBC
2424
Antioch
AE 2. As 697, but Antioch mm. RIC 294/68(e); LRBC 2783
707 ANTT 5.33 g 21mm \ RIC 294/68(e)2
708 ANTA 4.69 g 22mm \ RIC 294/68(e)3
AE 3. As 703, but Antioch mm.
709 ANTI; in rev. |. field, cross 2.93g 10mm |
RIC 295/69(e)3v; LRBC 2789v
691. 59.30; Glendining 19.vi.1959, lot 584 699. 87.1.10; Grierson 10.i.1987, prov. as last 704. 56.13.53; Grierson, from Sydenham sale,
692. 71.9; Franceschi 15.i.1971 700. 56.13.51; Grierson, from Baldwin lot 869B
693. 69.64; Franceschi 22.xii.1969 10.x.1952, ex Lawrence coll. 705. 71.29.1; Baldwin 28.v.1971
694. 48.17.913; Peirce, from Raymond 1928 701. 67.7; from Hess-Bank Leu sale 5.v.1965, 706. 56.13.55; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2,
695. Whittemore lot 543 lot 988
696. 48.17.912; Peirce, from SLCC ii.1929 702. 48.17.915; Peirce, from Feuardent 707, 56.13.56; Grierson, prov. as last
697. 56.13.49; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2, ix. 1927 708. 48.17.923; Peirce, from SLCC viii. 1928
lot 988 703. 56.13.52; Grierson, from Baldwin 709. 71.3; Franceschi 5.i.1971
698. 87.1.9; Grierson 10.i1.1987, from Baldwin
16.xii. 1986
10.x.1952, ex Lawrence coll.
PLATE 27
HONORIUS (1)
203
702
701
700
699
698
HONORIUS (1) cont.
Alexandria Milan, 394-402
AE 2. As 697, but Alexandria mm. Solidus, AV. Emperor spurning captive. C 44; RIC 84/35(c);
710 ALEA 6.68 g 20mm ®%\ RIC 304/21(d)1; LRBC UB pls. v.52 (as 394/5), v1.61 ff (as 395-ca. 402).
2913 Obv. and Rev. as 691, but rev. inscr. ends GGG and M D
instead of S M in field.
Uncertain Mint 712 449g 21mm \
AE 3. As 703, but mm. illegible. 713 447g 21mm |
711 ~~ Rev. inscr. GLORIA[ Mm. off flan 2.35 g 13 714 4.32 g 20mm fT
mm \
Western Coinages, 395-423
The earliest of these may date from late 394, notably 712,
but since most date from January 395 onward they are
grouped together here.
710. 71.26.1; Ars et Nummus (Milan) 8.iv.1971 711. 56.13.58; Grierson, bt. 1945 713. 48.17.909; Peirce, from Ciani i.1924
(1971 list 1/2, no. 347) 712. Whittemore 714. 57.4.43; Friend
HONORIUS (2)
Milan, 394—402 (cont.)
Tremissis, AV. Victory advancing r. C 47; UB pls. v.55 (as
394/5), v1.63 (as 395 ff).
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM Victory advancing r.
w. wreath and gl. cr. In field, M D; in ex., COM
715 135g 13mm 7
Siliqua, AR. For the drastic clipping to which four of the
following coins were subjected, see above, pp. 37—9, 205.
Class 1. Roma seated |. 394-7. C 59; UB pl. v.67
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VIRTVSRO MANORVM Roma seated I. on cuir-
ass, holding globe surmounted by Victory, and inverted
spear. In ex., MDPS
716 142g 16mm f
717 Obv. inscr. illeg.; rev.: JORVM mm. mainly off
flan 0.72 g (clipped) 13 mm |
718 DNHONORI[; VIRTVSRO[ mm. off flan
0.77 g (clipped) 13 mm |
Class 2. VOT V MVLT X in wreath, 397 ff. C 63; UB pl.
v1.79 (as 397); RIC 82/26 (as 388-93, effectively 393).
Obv. As last.
Rev. VOT/V/MVLT/X in wreath; beneath, MDPS
719 164g 17mm 7
720 = 1.31 g (clipped) 14mm \
721 DNH[ mm. off flan 0.76 g (clipped) 13mm \
Aquileia
Solidus, AV. 404? (see above, pp. 198-9). Emperor spurning
captive. C — ; UB pl. Eq; PCR III.1506
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVGGG Emperor standing r., hold-
ing labarum in r. hand and globe in I., spurning captive w.
l. foot. In field, A Q ; in ex., COMOB
722 441g 20mm f
Rome
Solidus, AV. 404 or later. As last, but R M instead of A Q in
field. C 44; PCR III.1498
723 442g 20mm f
724 445g 20mm f
725 449g 21mm Tf
Semissis, AV. 404. Victory seated inscribing VOT/X/MVLT/
Tremissis, AV. 394—408(?). Victory advancing r. C 47
As 715, but R M instead of M D in field.
727 =61.52g 13 mm
AE 3 and 4. For the proposed datings of these coinages,
see above, pp. 207-13.
First Coinage. 394—402
AE 4. Salus Reipublicae, Victory dragging captive |. C 32;
LRBC 809-11. Not represented.
Second Coinage. 402-9
AE 3. Urbs Roma Felix, Roma standing. C 72; LRBC 816;
PCR II1.1500. This was carried on by the very similar (but
not identical) coinage of Priscus Attalus in 409
Obv. DNHONOR IVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VRBSRO MAFELIX Roma standing facing, look-
ing r., holding trophy on spear, and globe surmounted by
Victory. In field, OF and officina numeral; in ex., SMROM
(a) Normal module
728 DNHONO[ and JBSRO[ OF P ; mm. JMRO[
1.92 g (broken flan) 15 mm
729 JVC (obv. inscr. mostly off flan) OF S ; mm. ]M[
2.28¢g 16mm |
(b) Reduced module, on very thick flan
730 Obv. JOR{[ ; rev. JRB[ OF [S?] ; mm. off flan
189g 12mm \
Third Coinage. 409/10 (410 at Rome).
AE 3. Gloria Romanorum, emperor and two captives. C 24;
LRBC 827. See nos. 733-4.
Fourth Coinage. 410-23.
AE 4. Victoria Aucc, Victory running |. C 39; LRBC 828-
30
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTOR IAAVCC Victory advancing I., holding
wreath and palm. In I. field, usually officina numeral; in
ex., RM
731 Off. P JORI VSPFAVC and JAAVCC, only tops
of R and M visible. 1.37 g 11 mm
XX on shield C 5] 732 Off.S DNHONORI[ and JOR[ ; mm. off flan,
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem). which is very small and thick. 144g 9mm |
Rev. VICTORIAAVGVSTORVM Victory seated r. in-
scribing VOT/X/MVLT/XX on shield supported by Ge-
nius. In field, R M; in ex., COMOB
726 2.20g 12mm \
715. 56.6.3; Grierson, from Seaby 23.xi.1946 722. 63.2; MMAG Basel sale 25, 17.xi.1962, lot 728. 71.26.4; Ars et Nummus (Milan) 8.iv.1971
716. 48.17.911; Peirce, from SLCC vii.1929 672 (1971 list 1/2, no. 350)
717. 56.13.62; Grierson, from Seaby 723. 57.12; “Foreign Ambassador” sale, lot 449 729. 71.23; Ars et Nummus (Milan) 16.iii.1971
31.xii.1945, from Edington hoard
724.
59.31; Glendining sale 19.vi.1959, lot 564
(Dec. 1970 list, no. 417)
718. 56.13.63; prov. as last 725. Whittemore 730. 71.37.4; Grierson, from MMAG Basel
719. 71.30; Ratto 7.vi.1971 726. 67.22; MMAG Basel sale 35, 16.vi.1967, 15.vi.1971
720. 56.13.59; Grierson, from Baldwin lot 185 731. 56.23.2529; Bertelé 1956
13.111. 1948 727. 71.32; MMAG Basel sale 44, 15.vi.1971, 732. 86.6.11; Grierson 10.i.1987, from Bald-
721.
56.13.60; Grierson, from Seaby
11.ix.1945, from Edington hoard
lot 170
win 16.xii.1986
PLATE 28
HONORIUS (2)
743
742
741
HONORIUS (2) cont.
Uncertain Mints
Third Coinage. 409/10 (and later?).
AE 3. Gloria Romanorum, emperor and two captives. C 24;
LRBC 827 (Rome), 1114 (Aquileia), 1582 (with SM, as Sis-
cia, but more probably Ravenna; see above, pp. 194-5).
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. GLORIARO MANORVM Emperor facing, look-
ing r., suppressing captive on I. w. r. hand and holding out
l. to captive kneeling |. In ex., mm.
733 Rev. JROMANORVM mm. illegible 2.58 g 11
mm /
734 Obv. inscr. illegible; rev. GLORIARO[ mm. illeg-
ible 2.21 g 10 mm
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. 402-23. Emperor spurning captive. C 44
As 722, but R V instead of A Q in field.
735 449g 20mm f
736 4.40 g (pierced) 21 mm f
There is also in the collection (48.17.3860; Peirce, from
Baldwin ix.1929) a Germanic (Visigothic) derivative
(4.41 g 20mm }).
Tremissis, AV. 402-23. Victory advancing r. C 47
As 715, but R V instead of M D in field, and COM or
COMOB in ex.
737 COM 1.34g 13mm | Graffiti on obv.: |, A;
ome he
738 COMOB 1.50g 13mm \
739 COMOB 1.45g 12mm \
Siliqua, AR. 402-23. Gloria Romanorum, Roma enthroned.
C 12-13. Possibly barbarous; see above, p. 206.
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. GLORIARO MANORVM Roma enthroned fac-
ing, looking |., holding inverted spear in |. hand, in ex.,
RVPS
(a) Normal wt. and flan. C 12
740 1.48 g (plugged) 17 mm f
(b) Reduced wt. and flan. C 13
741 Obv. II for PF 0.67 g 15mm Tf
Solidus, AV. 413? (see above, p. 201). Emperor w. foot on
lion. C 43
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVG Helmeted, bearded bust
r.
Rev. VICTORI AAVGGG Emperor standing facing,
crowned by Manus Dei, holding in r. hand a scepter sur-
mounted by Christogram, and in I. a sword; beneath r. foot,
a lion. In field, R V; in ex., COB
742 446g 20mm f
Solidus, AV. 422. Roma and Constantinopolis seated. C
55=73
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVG Armored bust three-
quarters facing, holding spear and shield with Chi-Rho
Rev. Roma and Constantinopolis seated facing one an-
other and holding shield w. VOT/XXX/MVLT/XXXxX, be-
low which, a palm. In field, R V; in ex., COMOB
743 443g 21mm f
733. 56.13.61; Grierson 1956, ex Ulrich-Bansa 737. 56.6.4; Grierson 1956, from de Falco 741. 56.13.64; Grierson 1956, from Schulman
25.11.1951 9.ix.1948 28.vii. 1952
734. 48.17.929; Peirce, bt. at Salona iv.1926 738. 59.34; Vinchon 742. 48.17.925; Peirce, from SLCC vi.1929
735. 48.17.927; Peirce, from Baldwin ix.1929 739. 56.6.5; Grierson 1956, from Dillen 743. 59.39; MMAG Basel sale 19, 5.vi.1959, lot
736. 48.17.926; Peirce, from Godart sale, lot 12.vii.1949 275
35 740. 48.17.928; Peirce, from Ciani ix.1925
HONORIUS (3)
Eastern Mints, 395—408
First Period, 395—402
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. 395. Emperor spurning captive, AAVCC, SM/
COMOB. C-; RIC -
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVCC and officina numeral. Type as
691-6. In field, S M; in ex., COMOB
744 Off. 426g 20mm |
Solidus, AV. 395-402. Constantinopolis seated, AVCC, no
star. C 3
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing.
Rev. CONCORDI AAVCC and usually officina nu-
meral. Constantinopolis seated facing, looking r., holding
scepter and globe surmounted by Victory, w. r. foot on
prow. In ex., CONOB
745 Off.A 436g 19mm |
746 Off.B 450g 20mm |
747 = Off. T 3.76g 18mm Y There is no obvious
explanation of the low wt., and the coin has every
appearance of authenticity. It is of unusually
small module.
748 Off.H 4.35g 19mm |
749 Off. \ 4.49¢ 20mm \
750 Off.1 443g 20mm |
Tremissis, AV 395-402. Victory advancing r. Cf. C 46 (w.
star).
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORIA AVCVSTORVM Victory advancing
r., looking backwards, holding wreath and gl. cr. In ex.,
CONOB.
AE 3. Emperor crowned by Victory. C 56; LRBC 2206
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VIRTVS EXERCITI Emperor standing facing,
looking r., r. hand holding spear and I. resting on shield,
crowned by Victory on r. In ex., mm.
755 CONS 1.66g 16mm \
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. Type as 745, w. GG, but Christogram on breast-
plate, COMOB in ex., no officina numeral. C 3 var.; Pearce
1938, 243.1.
756 443g 20mm \
Nicomedia
AE 3. As 755, but SMN as mm. LRBC 2437, 2439 (with *
in rev. field). Probably coins w. pellet in rev. field, corre-
sponding to 2440 (of Arcadius), also exist.
757 SMNB 2.88 g 19mm \N LRBC 2437
758 Rev.: VIRTVS EXER{ ; in r. field, * SMNB
2.29¢ 18mm \ LRBC 2439
Cyzicus
As last, but SMK as mm. LRBC 2581 (pearl diadem), 2582
(rosette diadem).
759 Pearl diadem Rev.: JEXERCITI SMKA 2.34 g
17 mm
760 Pearl diadem SMKB 1.98 g 18mm f
Antioch
As last, but ANT as mm. LRBC 2793 (pearl diadem), 2794
(rosette diadem).
761 Pearl diadem ANTI 2.24 g 17mm \ LRBC
2793
762 Rosette diadem ANTA or A 2.92 ¢g 17mm \
LRBC 2794
Alexandria
As last, but ALE as mm. LRBC 2918 (pearl diadem).
763 DNHONORI[ and VIRTVSE[ JITI ALEA 2.51
g (broken flan) 16mm \
751 146g 15mm Tf
752 147g 14mm /
753 146g 15mm \ Cross detached from globe;
same rev. die as 754
754 149g 15mm / Cross detached from globe;
same rev. die as 753
744. 56.6.1; Grierson 1956, from Glendining 752. 60.117; MMAG Basel 11.xi.1960
sale 25.xi.1953, lot 208 753. Whittemore Loan 18
745.
746.
58.184; Zacos, 30.ix.1958
Whittemore Loan 15
754.
755.
Whittemore
56.13.50; Grierson, from Baldwin
10.x.1952, ex Lawrence coll.
747. 48.17.918; Peirce, from SLCC xii.1930
748. Whittemore Loan 16 756. 70.3; Baldwin 18.1.1970
749. Whittemore 757. 71.29.2; Baldwin 28.v.1971
750. 60.90; Glendining sale 21.x.1960, lot 895 758.
751.
59.18; Platt 1.vi.1959
71.26.2; Ars et Nummus (Milan) 8.iv.1971
(1971 list 1/2, no. 348)
759.
760.
761.
762.
763.
56.13.54; Grierson, from Baldwin
10.x.1952; ex Lawrence coll.
48.17.922; Peirce, from Bourgey 1926
48.17.924; Peirce, from SLCC vii. 1928
71.26.3; Ars et Nummus (Milan) 8.iv.1971
(1971 list 1/2, no. 349)
56.13.57; Grierson, from Sydenham sale,
lot 869 B
PLATE 29
HONORIUS (3)
750
763
62
7
761
760
759
758
757
HONORIUS (3) cont.
Second Period, 402
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. As 745, but AVCCC and no star in field. C 6
(but without star).
764 Off. 4.47 g 21mm |
765 Off. \ 443 ¢ 20mm |
AE 3. 400-3. Armored bust, and Constantinopolis
seated. C 4; LRBC 2211
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing, as on solidus.
Rev. CONCORDI AAVCC Constantinopolis seated, as
on solidus. In ex., mm. and officina numeral.
764. 70.2; Franceschi 12.1.1970
765. 47.2.3; Shaw
766. 48.17.921; Peirce, from SLCC vii.1928
767. 59.1; Hecht (Rome), believed to have been
acq. in the east, 27.1.1959
766 CONSA 2.44g 17mm \
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. As 745, but CCC with square Cs, COMOB, and
Christogram on breastplate. C 6v; Pearce 1938, 244, Ila
767 442g 20 mm
Cyzicus
AE 3. 400-3. As 766, but SMK as mm. LRBC 2587
768 JONORI VSPFAVG, only lower parts of letters
visible on rev. SMKA 2.02 g 25mm f
768. 86.6.8; Grierson 10.i1.1987, from Baldwin
16.xi.1986
HONORIUS (4)
Third Period, 403-8
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. Constantinopolis seated, AVCCC. As 764, but
star in rev. field. C 6. Not represented.
AE 3 As 772, but CONS and officina numeral. C 29; LRBC
2215. Not represented.
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. Constantinopolis seated, AVCCC. As 764, but
star in rev. field.
(a) Christogram on breastplate, horseman on shield,
COMOB in rev. ex. C 6v; Pearce 1938, 244.IIb; MIRB
“Th. II” V52a
769 442g 20mm 7
770 440g 20mm \
(b) No ornament on breastplate, Victory and crouching
captive on shield, TESOB in rev. ex. C 3v; Pearce 1938,
245 V; cf. MIRB “Th. II” 55b
771 TES(OB) recut over COM(OB); N of CONCOR-
DIA recut for better placing 4.46 g 20mm |
Cyzicus
AE 3. Three emperors standing. C 29; LRBC 2591
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem); in
l. field, star
Rev. GLORI AROMA NORVM Three emperors
standing, the outer ones w. spear and shield, the smaller
central one (Theodosius II) w. spear and globe. In ex., mm.
772 SMKA DDN off flan 1.33 g 15mm Tf
773 SMKB JNORI VSPFAVC 1.59g 15mm 7
Antioch
AE 3 As last, but ANT as mm. C 29; LRBC 2802
774 ANTA DNHO{JA[ and GLORI[ JOMA 1.21 g
(irregular flan) 15 mm \
775 ANT[ DNHON[ JSPFAVC 1.89 g 15mm \
Fourth Period, 408—23
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. Constantinopolis seated. As 745-50, but ends
CC, not CCC. Star in rev. field. C 3; MIRB “Th. II” 13b
776 = =©Off. A 4.49 g 21 mm
777 =~ Off. A 4.49 g 20 mm
778 Off. B 4.45 g 21 mm
779 Off. H 4.47 g 21 mm
780 Off. 1 449g 22mm ¥
——-—Ke
Tremissis, AV. 403-23. Victory advancing r. As 751, but star
in rev. field r. C 46; MJRB “Th. II” 46
781 149g 14mm ¥
Light miliarense, AR. 403(?) Emperor standing facing.
C —; MIRB “Th. II” 62
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Bust I. (pearl diadem).
Rev. CLORIA ROMANORVM Emperor, nimbate, in
military attire, standing facing, raising r. hand and holding
globe in |. In 1. field, star; in ex., CON
782 430g 24mm |
Siliqua, AR. 411. VOT X MVLT XX (The decennalia must
be those of Theodosius II, since a star was not yet used in
402.) Cf. C 65 (without star); MJRB “Th. II” 64
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VOT/X/MVLI/XX in wreath; beneath, CONS*
783 198g 19mm \
784 4.49 g (cast forgery) Star is eight-pointed. 18
mm 7
Thessalonica
Solidus, AV. As 769, but no ornament on breastplate, star
in field, and obv. legend ends CC
(a) COMOB, and shield ornamented w. Victory holding
wreath and palm. C 4v; cf. Pearce 1938, 244.111;
MIRB “Th. II” 52b
785 441g 21mm f
(b) TESOB, and shield ornamented w. normal horseman
device. C 3v; cf. Pearce 1938, 244.1V; MIRB “Th.
II” 55c
786 Fin PF has form of a square C, OB in TESOB is
between two pellets 4.27 g 20mm \
Uncertain Mints
AE 3 Two emperors standing. C 26; MIRB “Th. II” 73
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem),
star in |. field.
Rev. GLORIARO MANORVM ‘Two emperors stand-
ing, each w. spear and shield. Mm in ex.
787 Mm. uncertain, perhaps SMH[ or SMK{. JI
VSPFAVC and GLORIARO MANOR{[ 2.17 g
13mm \
788 Mm. off flan DNHONOR[ and GLORI AR[
(Struck off center) 1.50 g 13mm _ Tf
This type was struck in Honorius’ name at all the Eastern
mints save Antioch, which employed a different type. The
star in the obverse field was carried over from the coinage
of 403-8, and the coins were probably all struck soon after
408. Cohen wrongly supposed the figures to be Arcadius
and Honorius, not Theodosius II and Honorius.
769. 60.85; Seaby 6.vi.1960 776. Whittemore Loan 17 783. 69.9; Hess-Bank Leu sale 25.iv.1969, lot
770. 71.11; MMAG Basel sale 43, 12.xi.1971, 777. Whittemore 709
lot 505 778. 48.17.917; Peirce, from Page 784. Whittemore
771. 56.6.2; Grierson, from Glendining sale 779. 48.17.916; Peirce, from Page 785. 60.87; MMAG Basel 29. vii. 1960
25.xi.1953, lot 206 780. Whittemore 786. 48.17.914; Peirce, from SLCC vii.1929
772. 60.53; Grierson 3.iii. 1960 781. Whittemore 787. 86.6.5; Grierson 10.i1.1987, from Baldwin
773. 60.55; prov. as last 782. 70.5; Ars et Nummus (Milan) 6.ii.1970 10.xi.1986
774. 60.54; prov. as last (Oct. 1969, list 12 no. 380) 788. 86.6.6; Grierson, as before
775. 69.15; Platt 5.v.1959
PLATE 30
HONORIUS (4)
772
771
770
769
780
779
778
777
776
775
782
]
78
at
ery
ys.
788
787
HONORIUS (4) cont.
Coinage of 420
This coinage was struck to celebrate Theodosius II’s vicen-
nalia, The star was dropped from the solidus, which was of
a new type, but retained for the traditional semissis and sil-
iqua.
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. Victory holding long cross. C 68; M/RB “Th.
II” 16
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Armored bust, three-
quarters facing.
Rev. VOTXX MVLTXXX and usually officina nu-
meral. Victory holding long cross. In ex., CONOB
789 Off. H 4.37 g 21 mm
789. 57.4.112; Friend
790. 48.17.919; Peirce
791. 56.13.48; Grierson, from Baldwin
13.11.1948
Semissis, AV. Victory seated r. C 40 (but said to have a Chi-
Rho in field); MIJRB “Th. IL” 40
Obv. DNHONORI VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORIAAVCC Victory seated r. inscribing XX/
XXX on shield. In I. field, star; in r. field, Christogram; in
ex., CONOB
790 2.22g 18mm |
Siliqua, AR. As 783, but VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX in wreath.
C—; MIRB “Th. II” -
791 192g 18mm ¥
CONSTANTINE III, JOVINUS, and PRISCUS ATTALUS
CONSTANTINE III
Usurper in Gaul 407 — summer 411
In the references, L = Lafaurie 1953.
Phase 1. 407 — June 408
Four associated augusti: Constantine III, Honorius, Arca-
dius, and Theodosius II.
Lyon
Solidus, AV. Emperor spurning captive. C 6; L 3; Bastien
1987a, no. 244
Obv. DNCONSTAN TINVSPFAVC Bust r. (rosette dia-
dem)
Rev. VICTORIA AAAVGGGG Emperor standing r.,
holding labarum in r. hand and globe surmounted by Vic-
tory in |., spurning captive w. I. foot. In field, L D; in ex.,
COMOB
792 435g 21mm |
Phase 2. June 408 — 411
Three associated augusti, Arcadius having died 1 May 408.
The number of C’s or G’s remained unchanged to 411 de-
spite Constans being created augustus in 409.
Lyon
Solidus, AV. As last, but AVCCC. C 5; L 6; Bastien 1987a,
no. 250
793 448g 20mm | Graffito (cross) in obv. |. field.
Lyon
Siliqua, AR. Roma seated |. C 4 or 7; L 7; Bastien 1987a,
no. 251
Obv. DNCONSTAN TINVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. VICTORIA AAVGGG Roma seated |. on high-
backed throne, holding globe surmounted by Victory and
inverted spear. In ex., SMLD
794 121g 15mm |
795 mm. off flan; attribution based on style of bust
153g 16mm |
Trier
Solidus, AV. As 793, but Trier mm. C 5; L 10
Obv. As 793, but pearl diadem.
Rev. As 793, but no mm. in field, and in ex., TROBS
796 449g 21mm |
797 447g 20mm |
798 447g 21mm 7
Siliqua, AR. Roma seated |. C 4; L 1]
Obv. DNCONSTAN TINVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. VICTORI AAAVCCC As 794, but in ex., TRMS
799 DNCO[ JNVSPF AVC VICTORI[ JAVCCC
1.46 g (clipped) 15 mm 7
800 150g 17mm |
801 D of obv. inscr. missing; VIC[ JAAAVCCC
1.54 g 17mm
802 DNC of obv. inscr. missing; VICTO[ JCCC
131g 16mm |
Arles 408-10
Solidus, AV. As 793, but in field A R. C 5; L 12
803 447g 21mm 7
804 Pearl diadem 4.47 g 21mm |
Siliqua, AR. As 794, but rev. A’s and C’s (instead of A’s and
G’s); in ex., SMAR. C 4; L 14
805 1.26g 15mm \
Arles 410-11
Mint-marks include K
Solidus, AV. As 803-4, but in ex., KONOB. C 5; L 15
806 VICTORI AAAVCCC 4.49 g 21mm |
Siliqua, AR. As 805, but obv. A’s (instead of A’s); in 1. field,
cross; in ex., KONT. C—-; L 17 var.
807 JONT 1.16 g (clipped?) 15mm \
JOVINUS
Usurper in Gaul, autumn 411-413
Lyon
Solidus, AV. Emperor spurning captive. C 1; Bastien
1987a, no. 254
Obv. DNIOVIN VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. RESTITV TORREIP Type as 792. In field, L D;
in ex., COMOB
808 4.25g 20mm / Slight damage (? by fire) to 1.
side of obv. Bastien 1987a, no. 254c (this coin).
Siliqua, AR. Roma seated |. C 4; Bastien 1987a, no. 258
Obv. DNIOVIN VSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTOR IAAVCC Roma seated |. on curule chair,
but w. high back. In ex., SMLDV
809 165g 15mm f
Trier
Siliqua, AR. As last, but Roma seated on square throne w.
high back; in ex., TRMS. C 4
810 134g 16mm \
811 Throne w. Z design 1.29g 16mm |
792. 48.17.939; Peirce, from Platt i.1928 799. 48.17.942; Peirce 805. 48.17.944; Peirce, from Bourgey 7.x.1926
793. 48.17.938; Peirce, from Platt 1.1928 800. 56.13.65; Grierson, from Lawrence sale 2, 806. 71.12; MMAG Basel sale 43, 12.xi.1970,
794. 58.17; MMAG Basel 17.iii.1958 (list 177, lot 986 lot 506
no. 94) 801. 56.13.66; Grierson, from Tinchant 807. 48.17.945; Peirce, from Schulrnan xi. 1928
795. 48.17.946; Peirce, from Schulman xi.1928 29.i11.1949 808. 71.33; MMAG Basel sale 44, 15.vi.1971,
796. 48.17.940; Peirce, from Bourgey iii. 1924 802. 48.17.943; Peirce lot 175; .. . ex Récamier sale, lot 578
797. 48.17.941; Peirce, from Niklovitz (Buda- 803. 55.21; Ratto 809. 48.17.949; Peirce
pest) vii. 1924 804. 56.6.6; Grierson, from Seaby 13.i.1947, 810. 48.17.947; Peirce, from Bourgey 4.x.1926.
798.
48.17.3865; Peirce
ex Hansen coll.
811.
48.17.948; Peirce
PLATE 31
CONSTANTINE III—PRISCUS ATTALUS
CONSTANTINE III—PRISCUS ATTALUS cont.
PRISCUS ATTALUS
Usurper, autumn 409 — June 410 (Italy), 415 —- May 416
(Gaul)
Rome, 409-10
Solidus, AV
Class 1. 409 Bust w. pearl diadem, no star in rev. field.
C 3
Obv. PRISCVSATTA LVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. INVICTARO MAAETERNA Roma enthroned
facing. In field, R M; in ex., COMOB
812 443g 21mm |
812. 57.30; Grierson, ex Gallwey coll. (in Platt
Hall sale 2, 16.xi.1950, lot 2072a; not in
catalogue)
813. 48.17.950; Peirce, from Ars Classica sale
17, 3.xi. 1934, lot 961
Class 2. 410 As last, but rosette diadem, and star in rev.
field. C 3
813 443g 20mm \
“Ravenna,” early 410(?)
Siliqua, AR. On the probable date and circumstances of
minting, see above, p. 223. C-
Obv. As solidus, bust w. pearl diadem.
Rev. VICTORI AAVGG Roma seated |. on cuirass,
holding globe surmounted by Victory, and inverted spear.
In ex., PSRV
814 1.08g 14mm |
814. 86.5; Grierson, from Baldwin 19.xi.1986
CONSTANTIUS III, JOHN and GALLA PLACIDIA
CONSTANTIUS III
8 February — 2 September 421
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. Emperor spurning captive. C |
Obv. DNCONSTAN TIVSPFAVC Bust r. (rosette dia-
dem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Emperor standing facing,
looking r., holding labarum in r. hand and globe sur-
mounted by Victory in |., spurning captive w. |. foot. In
field, R V; in ex., COMOB
815 445g 20mm \
“Nicomedia”
Half-siliqua, AR. Victory advancing I. w. wreath and palm.
C 3. Seventeenth-century forgery; see discussion above, p.
225. Constantius III was not recognized in the East, and
silver coins were in any case not struck at Nicomedia in this
period. The type is appropriate for a half-siliqua, not a sil-
iqua.
Obv. DNCONSTAN TIVSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. VICTORIA ROMANORVM Victory advancing L.,
holding wreath in r. hand and palm in I. In ex., SMN
816 0.93g 13mm |
GALLA PLACIDIA
Wife and widow of Constantius III
Augusta (?8 February) 421 — 27 November 450
First Period, 421—2
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. Victory seated r. C 3
Obv. DNGALLAPLA CIDIAPFAVG Bust r., Chi-Rho
on shoulder; above, Manus Dei holding crown.
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICAE Victory seated r. on cuir-
ass, inscribing shield w. Chi-Rho. In field, R V; in ex.,
COMOB
817 448g 21mm |
Semissis, AV. Chi-Rho in wreath. C 10
Obv. Inscr. as last. Bust r., cross on shoulder, no Manus
Dei w. crown.
Rev. SALVSREIPVBLICAE Chi-Rho in wreath; be-
neath, COMOB
818 2.21g 17mm f Surface slightly damaged by
hammering.
815. 48.17.930; Peirce, from Bourgey
17.xii.1913
816. 48.17.931; Peirce, from Schulman iii.1931
817. 71.34; MMAG Basel sale 44, 15.vi.1971,
lot 179
818. 67.40; Niggeler sale 3, lot 1577
819. 48.17.952; Peirce, from Schulman iii.1931
820. 48.17.955; Peirce, bt. x.1928
821. 48.17.956; Peirce, from Bourgey iii.1924
JOHN
20 November 423 — June 425
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. Emperor spurning captive. C 4
Obv. DNIOHAN NESPFAVC Bearded bust r. (rosette
diadem).
Rev. As 815. In field, R V; in ex., COMOB
819 445g 21 mm
Tremissis, AV. Victory advancing r. w. wreath and gl. cr.
C8
Obv. As last.
Rev. VICTORIA AVCVSTORVM Victory advancing
r., holding wreath in r. hand and gl. cr. in |. In field, R V;
in ex., COMOB
820 141g 12mm f
821 146g 13mm ¥
Rome
AE 4. Victory and captive.
Obv. As last.
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICE Victory advancing L., w. tro-
phy on shoulder, dragging captive; in I. field, Christogram
and sometimes officina initial; in ex., RM sometimes pre-
ceded by officina initial.
822 DNIOHANN[; SALVSR[ ]PVBLICE In ex.,
TRM 1.50 g 12mm Z C lv; LRBC 837
823 DNIOHANN[ JFAVC ; JPVBLICE In 1. field, T;
in ex.,RM 1.18g 12mm | LRBC 833
GALLA PLACIDIA
Second Period, 424—50
Constantinopolitan Coinage of 424-5
Solidus, AV. VOT XX MVLT XXX. Victory holding long
cross. C 14; MJRB “Th. II” 21
Obv. AELPLACI DIAAVC Bust r., small cross on shoul-
der; above, Manus Dei holding crown.
Rev. VOTXX MVLTXXX Victory standing, looking l.,
holding long cross. In upper field, star; in ex., CONOB
824 420g 20mm \
822. 56.13.67; Grierson, from Baldwin
20.11.1947
823. 69.68; Fred Baldwin sale, lot 451
824. 57.4.114; Friend
CONSTANIUS ITI—GALLA PLACIDIA PLATE 32
CONSTANIUS ITI—GALLA PLACIDIA cont.
Italian Coinage of 425 and 425-30
Aquileia, 425
Solidus, AV VOT XX MVLT XXX. Victory holding long
cross. C 13
Obv. DNGALLAPLA CIDIAPFAVG Bust r., Chi-Rho
on shoulder; above, Manus Dei holding crown.
Rev. As last, but in rev. field, A Q, and in ex., COMOB
825 446g 21mm f
Rome, 425/6
Solidus, AV. As last, but in rev. field, RM. C 13
826 444g 21mm |
Ravenna, 426-30
Solidus, AV. As last, but in rev. field, R V. C 13
827 447g 21mm |
828 4.25¢ 21mm | Four tails to diadem. Slightly
crumpled, probably from a blow when it was
found.
Ravenna (or Rome?)
Tremissis, AV
Obv. Inscr. as last. Bust r., cross or Chi-Rho on shoulder.
Rev. Chi-Rho or cross in wreath; beneath, COMOB
(a) Chi-Rho in wreath. C 15
829 Cross on shoulder 1.50g 13mm |
830 Chi-Rho on shoulder 1.45 g 13mm Tf
(b) Cross in wreath. C 17
831 Crosson shoulder 1.42 g 13mm f
825. 67.39; Niggeler sale 3, lot 1576 830. 48.17.936; Peirce, from Spink 2.v.1931
826. 69.67; Fred Baldwin sale, lot 449 831. 67.41; Niggeler sale 3, lot 1578
Siliqua, AR. Victory seated r. C 5 (apparently the specimen
below).
Obv. DNGALLAPLA CIDIAPFAVC Bust r., cross on
shoulder.
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICAE Victory seated r. on cuir-
ass, inscribing Chi-Rho on shield. In ex., RMPS
832 189g 17mm
Ravenna
Half-siliqua, AR. Chi-Rho in wreath. C 16; PCR II1.1543
Obv. DNGALLAPLA CIDIAPFAVG Bust r., cross on
shoulder
Rev. Chi-Rho in wreath; beneath, RV
833 0.98 g 14mm fT
Constantinopolitan Coinage of 442/3
Solidus, AV. IMP XXXXII COS XVII PP. Constantinopolis
seated |. C 2; MIRB “Th. II” 38
Obv. GALLAPLA CIDIAAVC Bust r.; above, Manus
Dei holding crown.
Rev. IMPXXXXIICOS XVII*°P*P*® Constantinopolis
seated |., holding gl. cr. in r. hand and scepter in I.; |. foot
on prow, and shield by |. side. In 1. field, star; in ex.,
COMOB
834 447g 21mm |
833. 67.38; Niggeler sale 3, lot 1575
834. 57.13; “Foreign Ambassador” sale, lot 450:
827. 48.17.932; Peirce, from Niklovitz (Buda- 832. 58.2; MMAG Basel sale 17, 2.xii.1957, lot
pest) 1924 643; ...
828. 48.17.934; Peirce, from Guerson (?dealer)
ex Hoffmann sale, lot 2210; ex
De Quelen sale, lot 2273; ex Gosselin sale,
v.1926 lot 1411. See above, pp. 231-2.
829. 48.17.935; Peirce, from Schulman xi.1928
VALENTINIAN III
23 October 425 — 16 March 455
Accession Coinages, 425—6
Ravenna, 425
Solidus, AV. Victora Auggg (sic) and emperor spurning cap-
tive. C 23
Obv. DNPLAVALENT NIANVSPFAVG (sic, here and
on the rev. missing an I) Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTOR AAVGGG (sic) Emperor standing fac-
ing, looking r., holding labarum in r. hand and globe sur-
mounted by Victory in the l., spurning captive w. |. foot. In
field, R V; in ex., COMOB
835 453g 21mm f
Constantinople, 426
Solidus, AV. Salus Reipublicae and two emperors seated.
C 9; MIRB “Th. II” 24
Obv. DNVALENTIN IANVSPFAVC Armored bust
three-quarters facing.
Rev. SALVSREI PVBLICAE and usually officina nu-
meral. Theodosius and Valentinian nimbate, seated facing
in consular costume, each holding mappa and cross-
scepter. Above, star; in ex., CONOB
836 No off. numeral 4.49 g 21mm f
837 Off.A 4.13 g 21mm |
838 Off. 4.30g 21mm |
Tremissis, AV. Victory advancing r. C 27; MIRB “Th. II”
47
Obv. DNVALENTINIANVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. VICTORIA AVCVSTORVM Victory advancing
r., looking backward, holding wreath and gl. cr. In r. field,
star; in ex., CONOB
839 147g 14mm | Published in Bellinger et al.
1964, 228 no. 258 as Valentinian II.
840 Rev. inscr. breaks: RI-A-—AV 1.49 g 14mm
‘\
Main Coinages, 425—55
Ravenna, 425—55
Solidus, AV. Victoria Auggg and emperor w. foot on human-
headed serpent. C 19, 21
Obv. DNPLAVALENTI NIANVSPFAVG Bust r. (ro-
sette diadem), sometimes w. crown above head.
Rev. VICTORI AAVGGG Emperor standing facing,
holding cross and globe surmounted by Victory, his r. foot
on head of human-headed serpent. In field, R V; in ex.,
COMOB
Class 1. Without crown. C 19
841 447g 21mm 4
842 444g 21mm 7
843 445g 22mm fT
Class 2. With crown. C 21
844 442g 22mm | Deep cut in edge.
There are also in the collection two Gaulish derivatives of
the kind usually attributed to the Visigoths, with a crown
over the emperor’s head, one 48.17.369 (Peirce, from Ciani
iii.1924. 4.34 g 21 mm_ J), the other 55.23 (Ratto,
28.xi.1925. 4.37 g 21 mm \), as well as a plated forgery
of the period 48.17.1962 (Peirce, from Ciani 15.1.1924
4.42 ¢ 22mm 7).
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. C 49. The attribution to
Ravenna is uncertain, but probable.
Obv. DNPLAVALENTINIANVSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl
diadem).
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, COMOB
845 144g 14mm 7
Siliqua, AR. Soldier holding long cross. C 2 (incorrectly
described); Grierson 1983 (this coin).
Obv. DNPLAVALENTINIANVS[PFAVG] Bust r. (pearl
diadem).
Rev. GLORIARO[MANJORVM Soldier |. holding long
cross; above, star; in ex., RVPS (P reversed).
846 0.70 g (badly chipped) 15mm /
Half-siliqua, AR. Victory advancing |. Cll
Obv. DNPLAVALENTINIANVSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl
or rosette diadem).
Rev. VICTOR IAAVGG Victory advancing |. w. wreath
and palm; mm. off flan or indiscernible.
847 Pearl diadem Obv. inscr.: first 3 letters off flan.
Rev.: last 3 letters off flan 1.01 g (clipped)
13 mm
848 Rosette diadem 0.71 g (chipped and clipped)
13 mm
Rome, 425-55 (probably post 440)
Solidus, AV. As 841-3 (i.e., without crown), but with R M
in field. C 19
849 445g 21mm |
850 447¢ 21mm |
835. 56.6.9; Grierson, from Seaby 31.1.1950 841. 48.17.958; Peirce, from Budapest 1924 846. 48.17.3862; Peirce
836. Whittemore 842. 48.17.959; Peirce, from Platt 1925 847. 48.17.843; Peirce, from Schulman x.1931
837. 48.17.957; Peirce 843. 48.17.960; Peirce 848. 58.1; MMAG Basel sale 17, 2.xii.1957, lot
838. 55.22; Ratto 844. 48.17.961; Peirce, from Schulman x.1931 646
839. Whittemore Loan 8 845. 56.6.11; Grierson, from Baldwin 849. 61.19; Ars et Nummus (Milan) 12.x.1961
840. Whittemore 13.xi.1948
850. 48.17.963; Peirce, bt. in France
PLATE 33
VALENTINIAN III (1)
853
852
]
85
850
849
848
ia
eer
i ap —
.- wy”: paige
. , e ;”
: pat eet
VALENTINIAN III (1) cont.
Tremissts, AV. As 845, but with wreath of “Roman” style.
C 49 ff
851 DNPLAVAIENTINIANVSPIAVG 1.46 g
14mm \% Possibly a Visigothic or Suevic imita-
tion.
AE 4. VOT PVB and camp gate. C 37; LRBC 853
Obv. DNVALENTINIANSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. VOT PVB Camp gate w. turrets; above, officina ini-
tial; in ex., RM
852 Obv.: JNVAL[ JINIANVSPFA[ Rev.: VO[ ]PVB
Off. not visible 1.23g 12mm |
AE 4. 444. VOT XX in wreath. C —; LRBC 847 or 856
Obv. DNVAL[ENTINIANVSPFAVC ?] Bust r. (pearl
diadem).
Rev. VOT XX in wreath; in ex., mm.
853 Obv.: DNVAL[ Rev.: second X not visible under
corrosion; mm. off flan 0.83 g 12mm \
Milan
Solidus, AV. 425-55 (probably post 450). As 841-3 (i.e.,
without crown), but M D in field. C 19; UB pl. x.90.
854 442g 21mm \
Tremissis, AV. As 845, but much rougher wreath. C 49 ff;
UB pl. x.95 (this coin).
855 DNPLVALENTININANVSPFAVC (sic) 1.47 g
13mm \N\
Special Coinages in the West
Rome, 435
Solidus, AV. 435. VOT X MVLT XxX, consular issue. C 41
Obv. DNPLAVALENTI NIANVSPFAVG Consular
bust |., holding mappa and cross-scepter.
Rev. VOTX/MVLTXX Facing consular figure en-
throned, holding mappa and cross-scepter. In field, R M;
in ex., COMOB
856 442g 22mm 7
851. 48.17.3874; Peirce, from Schulman i.1929
852. 69.69; Fred Baldwin sale, lot 458
853. 56.13.68; Grierson, from Baldwin
20.11.1947 1173
854. 48.17.964; Peirce, from SLCC viii.1929
14.vi.1947
855. 56.6.12; Grierson, from Baldwin
856. 48.17.965; Peirce, from Cuzzi sale, lot
857. 56.6.10; Grierson, from Gans 24.ix.1953
Ravenna, 435
Semissis, AV. VOT X MVLT XX. C 30
Obv. DNPLAVALENTINIANVSPFAVG Bust r. (pearl
diadem).
Rev. VICTORIAAVGVSTORVM Victory seated r., in-
scribing VOT/X/MVLT/XX on shield supported by Genius.
In field, R V; in ex., COMOB
857 221g 17mm |
Rome, 455
Solidus, AV. VOT XXX MVLT XXXX.
Class 1. Consular issue, emperor w. kneeling woman. C 44
Obv. DNPLAVALENTI NIANVSPFAVG Consular
bust |., holding mappa and cross-scepter.
Rev. VOTXXXMVLTXXXX Emperor standing in con-
sular costume, w. cross-scepter in |. hand and holding out
r. hand to kneeling woman. In field, R M; in ex., COMOB
858 449g 22mm f illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 10,
Class 1, var. a.2; (x 5) pl. 11
Class 2. Vota issue, w. regular rev. C 45
Obv. Inscr. as last. Armored bust facing, holding spear
and shield inscribed w. Chi-Rho.
Rev. VOTXXXM V LTXXXX Emperor w. foot on
human-headed serpent, as 841-3. In field, R M; in ex.,
COMOB
859 448g 21mm /Y
858. 48.17.967; Peirce, from Schulman 1932,
from a Hamburger sale
859. 48.17.968; Peirce, from Miunzhandlung
Basel sale 6, 18.11.1936, lot 2095; from
Trau sale, lot 4678
VALENTINIAN III (2), JUSTA GRATA HONORIA, LICINIA EUDOXIA,
PETRONIUS MAXIMUS, AVITUS, and MAJORIAN
VALENTINIAN III 425-55 (2)
Eastern Coinage, 430-55
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. 430. VOT XXX MVLT XXXX. C 42; MIRB
“Th. II” 26
Obv. DNVALENTIN IANVSPFAVC Armored bust
three-quarters facing.
Rev. VOTXXX MVLTXXXX and usually officina nu-
meral. Constantinopolis enthroned |., holding gl. cr. in r.
hand and long scepter in |.; |. foot on prow, and shield by
l. side. In r. field, star; in ex., CONOB
860 Off.A 443g 20mm |
861 Off.H 444g 20mm |
Solidus, AV. 442/3. IMP XXXXII COS XVII PP. C 4;
MIRB “Th. II” 34
Obv. As last.
Rev. IMPXXXXIICOS XVII°P*P* Constantinopolis en-
throned L., as last, but star in I. field. In ex., COMOB
862 444g 21mm |
Solidus, AV. 450-455. Victory holding long cross. C 17;
MIRB “Marcian” 6
Obv. As last.
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC and usually officina numeral.
Victory standing |., holding long cross. In r. field, star; in
ex., CONOB
863 No off. numeral 3.93 g 20mm \
864 Off. \ 4.46 g 21 mm
Cyzicus
AE 4. 425-450. Cross in wreath. LRBC 2606; MIRB “Th.
II” 85
Obv. DNVALENTINIANOPFAVC Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, SMKA
865 095g 12mm 7
JUSTA GRATA HONORIA
Sister of Valentinian III. 426? — 450?
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. Accession issue, 426? C 1
Obv. DNIVSTGRATHO NORIAPFAVG Bust r.;
above, Manus Dei holding crown.
Rev. BONOREI PVBLICAE Victory standing |., hold-
ing long cross. In upper field, star; in field, R V; in ex.,
COMOB
866 448 ¢ 20mm /Y
Semissis, AV. Chi-Rho in wreath. C 2
Obv. Inscr. as last. Bust r.
Rev. SALVSREIPVBLICAE Chi-Rho in wreath; be-
neath, COMOB
867 2.11g 13mm |
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. C 5
Obv. As last, but inscr. unbroken.
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, COMOB
868 1.38g 13mm | Same dies as 869.
869 146g 13mm f Same dies as 868.
LICINIA EUDOXIA 6 August 439 — ?
Western Issues
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. 439. Empress enthroned facing. C 1]
Obv. LICINIAEVDO XIAPFAVG Bust facing, wearing
crown with pinnacles, central cross and pendilia.
Rev. SALVSRE I PVBLICAE Empress enthroned fac-
ing, holding gl. cr. and cross-scepter. In field, R V; in ex.,
COMOB
870 449g 21mm \
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. C —
Obv. DNELIAEVDO XIAPFAVG Bust r.
Rev. As 868-9.
871 1.50g 14mm \ Graffio on rev. |. field: A or
A?
Eastern issues
Constantinople
Solidus, AV. 442/3. IMP XXXXII COS XVII PP, Constan-
tinopolis seated. R 205 (as Eudocia); MIRB “Th. II” 37
Obv. AELEVDO XIAAVC Bust r.; above, Manus Dei
holding crown.
Rev. IMPXXXXIICOS XVIIPP Constantinopolis en-
throned l|., as 862, w. star in |. field. In ex., COMOB
872 4.25¢ 20mm |
Tremissis, AV. 439 or 442/32? Cross in wreath. T 144 (as
Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius); R 206 (as Eudocia); MIRB “Th.
II” 51
Obv. Inscr. as last. Bust r.
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, CONOB*
873 141g 14mm fT
860. 69.65; Franceschi 22.xi.1969 866. 60.63; Hess sale 7.iv.1960, lot 425 872. 60.56; MMAG Basel 17.iii.1960; from
861. 56.6.8; Grierson, from Baldwin 15.x.1946 867. 67.42; Niggeler sale 3, lot 1582
862. 56.6.7; Grierson, from Wertheimer sale, 868. 48.17.974; Peirce
MMAG Basel sale 15, 1.vii.1955, lot 901
873. 48.17.972; Peirce, from Andronikos
16.x11.1946, lot 192 869. 48.17.975; Peirce, from Vogel sale 11, lot x.1928
863. 58.11; Santamaria sale 24.11.1958, lot 986
1136 870. 48.17.970; Peirce, from Hirsch x.1934, lot
864. 60.62; Hess sale 7.iv.1960, lot 423
2000; from Vogel sale 11, lot 985
865. 71.4; Franceschi 5.i.1971 871. 48.17.973; Peirce, from Spink ii.1929
PLATE 34
VALENTINIAN III (2)—MAJORIAN
879
878
877
876
VALENTINIAN III (2)—MAJORIAN cont.
PETRONIUS MAXIMUS
17 March — 31 May 455
Rome
Solidus, AV. Emperor and human-headed serpent. C 1
Obv. DNPETRONIVSMA XIMVSPFAVC Bust r.
(pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Emperor standing facing,
holding long cross in r. hand and globe surmounted by Vic-
tory in l., w. r. foot on head of human-headed serpent. In
field, R M; in ex., COMOB
874 443g 21mm \
AVITUS
9 July 455 — 17 October 456
Arles
Solidus, AV. Emperor spurning captive. C 5
Obv. DAAVITVS PERPFAVG Bust r. (rosette diadem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Emperor standing facing,
looking r., holding long cross in r. hand and globe sur-
mounted by Victory in r., spurning captive w. |. foot. In
field, A R; in ex., COMOB
875 438g 21mm \
Milan
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. Contemporary AE cast for-
gery, presumably originally plated. See above, p. 249. C 14;
cf. Lacam p. 212 no. | and pl. 53
Obv. DNAVITVSPERPNC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, COMOB
876 117g 13mm |
MAJORIAN
1 April 457 — 2 August 461
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. Emperor and human-headed serpent. C 1
(but different obv. inscr. break).
Obv. DNIVLIVSMAIOR IANVSPFAVC Armored bust
r., holding spear and shield w. Chi-Rho ornament.
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Type as 874. In field, R V;
in ex., COMOB
877 430g 21mm \
AE 4. Victory w. wreath and palm. C 4; LRBC 586
Obv. DNIVLMAIORIANVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Victory advancing I., holding
wreath and palm; in ex., R V
878 Obv.: DNMAIORIA[ ; rev.:
2.61 g 15mm f
VIC[ JAAVCCC
874. 48.17.976; Peirce, from Bourgey iii.1925
875. 48.17.977; Peirce, from Schulman x.1931
876. 48.17.978; Peirce
877. 56.6.13; Grierson, from Glendining
AE 4. Emperor standing facing. C 3; cf. LRBC 869
(Rome).
Obv. DNMAIORI ANVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Emperor standing facing,
looking |., w. labarum in |. hand, r. on head of captive. In
ex, KY
879 Obv.: DNMAIOR[ JANVS[ ; rev.:
JVCCC 1.47 g (chipped) 13mm |
VICTORI[
Milan
Solidus, AV. Emperor and human-headed serpent. C 1;
UB pl. x1.102-3
Obv. DNIVLIVSMAIORI ANVSPFAVC Helmeted and
armored bust r., helmet w. rosette diadem, Chi-Rho on
shield.
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Type as 874. In field, M D;
in ex., COMOB
880 4.45g 21mm f Same obv. die as 881. UB pl.
x1.102
881 Rev. inscr. breaks IA—AV 4.41 g 21 mm fT
Same obv. die as 880. UB pl. x1.103 (this coin);
illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 61, var. c (p. 253).
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. C 19; UB pl. x1.136 rev.,
137, 137°
Obv. DNIVLMAIORIANVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath,COMOB
882 147g 14mm | Die links: same rev. and ap-
parently same obv. die as a Hunterian coin (Rob-
ertson 1984, 459 no. 5); same rev. die as UB pl.
xu1.136, 137 and 137*, same obv. die as 137*
and probably 137; same rev., and apparently
obv., die as the seven other coins in DO photo-
file.
AE 4. Type as 878, but MD in ex. C 4, UB pl. x1.106-7
883 JSPF VG and JCT 2.04g 13mm |
Arles
Solidus, AV. Emperor and human-headed serpent. C 1 var.
(w. COMOB>k).
Obv. DNIVLIVSMAIORI ANVSPFAVC Type as 880—
1.
Rev. As 874. In field, A R; in ex., COMOB
884 447¢ 20mm |
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. cf. C 16
Obv. DNIVLVSMAIORI ANVSPFAVC Armored bust
‘e
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, COMOB
885 Visigothic imitation? Obv. inscr.: L and F badly
formed, second I of IVLIVS absent 1.45 g
14mm 7
Rome
Tremissis, AV. Obv. as 882, but pellet after IVL; rev. wreath
of different style. C 19
886 148g 13mm \
14.1.1953, lot 143; ex Rashleigh sale, lot 879. 48.17.980; Peirce, from Bourgey 7.x.1926 883. 86.6.1; Grierson 10.i.1987, from Baldwin
80; ex Sir Arthur Evans sale (Ars Classica 880. 67.35.4; Ulrich-Bansa 20.vi.1967; from 16.xii. 1986
17, 3.x.1934), lot 2001; ex Hamburger Vinchon sale, 6.v.1955, lot 491 884. 48.17.979; Peirce, from Schulman x.1931
sale, 29.v.1929, lot 768 881. 67.35.5; Ulrich-Bansa 20.vi.1967 885. 56.6.14; Grierson, from Boutin 5.x.1951
878. 56.23.2534; Bertelé 882. 70.8; Longuet sale, lot 281 886. 57.46; Tinchant 31.x.1957
SEVERUS III and ANTHEMIUS (1)
SEVERUS III
19 November 461 — 14 November 465
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. Emperor and human-headed serpent. C 8
Obv. DNLIBIVSSEV ERVSPFAVC Bust r. (rosette dia-
dem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVGGG Emperor standing facing,
holding long cross and globe surmounted by Victory, w. r.
foot on the head of a human-headed serpent; R V in field.
In ex., COMOB
887 4.38 g 20mm | Lacam p. 341 no. 4 (illus. [x
2] p. 342, fig. 17)
888 Obv. inscr. breaks SE—VE 4.36 g 22mm | Il-
lus. (X 2) Lacam pl. 91, Type B.9 (p. 345)
There is also a Gaulish derivative, with R A in the field,
which has not been included (48.17.3872; Peirce, from
Schulman x.1931 4.37 g 20mm _ |).
Milan
Solidus, AV. Same type as last, but PERPETV (often ab-
breviated) instead of PF, rev. break normally RIA — AVC,
and M D in field. C 8
889 Obv. inscr. ends PEAVC and rev. break is RIA —
AVC 4.34 g 20mm f Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl.
95/2, Type D.2 (p. 356).
890 Obv. inscr. ends SEVERV —SPERPETVAVC (fi-
nal AV ligatured), and rev. break is RIA— AVC
4.40 g 21mm f Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 94;
Type A, var. c.3 (p. 351).
891 Obv. inscr. reads DNLLBIVSSEVE — RVSPEAVG,
rev. as last 4.42 g 21 mm 7 Illus. (x 2) Lacam
pl. 95/1, Type C 3 (p. 356).
892 As last, but DNLIB and V — ER 4.38 g 21 mm
t Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 95/2, Type D 3 (p.
356).
893 Obv. inscr. reads DNLIBIVSSEVERV — SPER-
PETVAVG (final AV ligatured) 4.38 g 22 mm
t Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 94, Type A, var. c.2 (p.
351).
894 As last, but obv. ends R— VSPERPETVAG and
rev. break is RI- A 4.40 g 22mm f UB pl.
x1.111 (this coin); illus. (xX 2) Lacam pl. 94, Type
B, var. b.3 (p. 353).
Rome
Solidus, AV. As last, but diadem of squares, and R M in
field. C 8
895 Obv. inscr. reads DNLIBIVSSEVE RVSPFAVG
and rev. VICTORI — AAVGGG (A’s w. horizontal
bar and G's well formed) 4.43 g 21 mm | II-
lus. (X 2) Lacam pl. 88, Type C, var. a.5
(wrongly as BM) (p. 338, no. 4).
Semissis, AV. Chi-Rho in wreath. C 2. Mint attribution
based on grounds of style.
Obv. As solidus, with same letter forms as last coin, but
pearl diadem.
Rev. SALVSREIPVBLICAE Chi-Rho in wreath; be-
neath, COMOB
896 2.17g 16mm | Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 96,
Type B, var. b.1 (p. 360).
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. C 19. Mint attribution
based on grounds of style and lettering.
Obv. DNLIBSEVE RVSPFAVC Bust r. (diadem w.
squares).
Rev. Cross in wreath; beneath, COMOB
897 143g 13mm | Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 97,
Type B, var. 2.4 (p. 363, as var. 2.1).
898 As last, but unbroken obv. inscr. and dotted dia-
dem 1.46g 13mm _ | Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl.
97, Type A, var. 2.2 (p. 361).
Half-siliqua, AR. Chi-Rho in wreath. C 16.
Obv. DNLIBIVSSEVERVSPFAVG Bust r. (diadem w.
squares).
Rev. As semissis, but RM beneath.
899 0.95g 12mm |
AE 4. Monogram of Ricimer in wreath. C 18(?); LRBC 871
Obv. DNLIBSEVERVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Monogram of the letters of Ricimer, RF , in
wreath.
900 Only traces of letters on obv. 0.95 g 10mm |
887. 48.17.981; Peirce, from Spink xi.1931 892. 67.35.10; prov. as last 897. 48.17.94; Peirce, from SLCC vii.1929
888. 48.17.982; Peirce, from Schulman xi.1928 893. 67.35.7; prov. as last
889. 48.17.983; Peirce, from SLCC viii. 1929 894. 67.35.6; prov. as last
898. 48.17.95; Peirce, from SLCC xii.1930
899. 69.72; Fred Baldwin sale, lot 469
890. 67.35.8; Ulrich-Bansa 20.vi. 1967 895. 55.11; Ratto 28.xi.1955 900. 56.13.69; Grierson, from Seaby
891. 67.35.9; prov. as last 896. 58.189; Franceschi 6.xi.1958
17.x.1945, ex Grantley 2777
PLATE 35
SEVERUS III, ANTHEMIUS (1)
SEVERUS III, ANTHEMIUS (1) cont.
ANTHEMIUS
12 April 467 — 11 July 472
The coins of Anthemius on this plate are all solidi.
Ravenna
Class 1. Two emperors holding between them long cross.
Type A. Profile bust. C 3
Obv. DNPROCANTH EMIVSPFAVG Bust r. (rosette
diadem)
Rev. SALVSREI P V BLICAE Two emperors nimbate,
standing facing each other, holding a long cross between
them and each a globe in his other hand; in field, R V. In
ex., COMOB
901 4.39g 22mm | IIlus. (x 3) Lacam pl. 104,
Type 1, var. 1 (p. 420).
Type B. Facing bust. C 2
Obv. DNPROCAUT HEMIVPFAVC Facing armored
bust w. spear and shield.
Rev. As last.
902 4.34 g (plugged) 20mm | Illus. (x 2) Lacam
pl. 106, Type III, var. 3b (p. 428).
Class 2. Two emperors holding banner w. PAX. C 11
Obv. DNANTHEMI V SPFAVG Bust as last.
Rev. Inscr. as last. Two standing figures in military cos-
tume facing, clasping hands and having between them an
oval banner inscribed PAX and surmounted by a cross. The
figure on the I. (Leo) has his r. hand on his breast, the one
on the r. (Anthemius) has a globe surmounted by a Victory.
In field, R V
903 438g 20mm | Illus. (x 3) Lacam pl. 108,
Type IV.1 (p. 432).
901. 48.17.986; Peirce .. . ex Montagu sale, lot
902. 56.6.15; Grierson, from Spink, 20.v.1953
903. 48.17.996; Peirce, from Vogel sale 11, lot
990
Milan
As last, but square banner w. PAS instead of PAX, and M
D in field. UB pl. xm.126-8
904 443g 20mm f Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 121,
Type I (VI) Class 1, var. 3 (p. 473).
905 443g 22mm f Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 122,
Type I (IV) Class II.1 (p. 478).
906 434g 21mm f Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 121,
Type I (VI), var. 3.5 (p. 473).
907 4.41 g 20mm f Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 121,
Type I (VI), var. 4.5 (p. 473).
Rome
As 903, but oval banner w. PAS, and R M in field.
908 438g 20mm f Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 111,
Type I (IV), var. 3 (p. 444).
Class 3. Two emperors holding between them a globus cru-
ciger. C 9
(a) Armored bust
Milan
Obv. DNANTHEMI VSPERPETAVC Armored bust
facing.
Rev As last, but emperors holding between them a gl.
cr. and in their other hand a spear; in field M D. In ex.,
COMOB. UB pl. xu.121-5
909 COMDOB; the MD ligatured 4.42 g 22mm Tf
Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 126.B, Type III (V1), Class
V, Type 1, var. 1.3 (p. 488).
910 4.25g 20mm f IIllus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 126.B,
Type III (VI), Class V, Type 2.1 (p. 485).
904. 67.35.19; Ulrich-Bansa 20.vi.1967 908. 56.6.16; Grierson, from Baldwin
1007 905. 67.35.20; prov. as last
906. 67.35.18; prov. as last 909. 48.17.994; Peirce
907. 67.35.17; prov as last
20.v.1953. Acq. in Cairo
910. 48.17.995; Peirce, from SLCC 11.1929
ANTHEMIUS 467-72 (2)
The coins are AV unless another metal is indicated. 911—925 are solidi.
Class 3 (cont.). Two emperors holding between them glo-
bus cruciger.
(a) With armored bust (cont.)
Milan (cont.)
911 Second S in SALVS reversed 4.34 g 22mm f
Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 126 B, Type III (VI), Class
V, Type 1.2 (p. 484).
912 446g 22mm f Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 126 B,
Type III (VI), Class V, Type 1, var. 2 (p. 488).
913 The MD may have been recut from RM. 4.43 g
21mm f Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 124, Type III
(V), Class II, Type 1, var. 2.1 (p. 482).
914 Ends PFAVG. A instead of A in obv. legend.
Rev. die of very poor workmanship. 4.45 g 21
mm f Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 124, Type III (V),
Class II, Type 3 (p. 482).
Rome
As last, but A (w. horizontal bar) in obv. and rev. legends,
rev. legend breaks SALVSR — EIP — VBLICAE, RM or var-
ious symbols in rev. field, and sometimes CORMOB in ex.
C7
915 RMin field. 449g 19mm | Illus. (x 2) La-
cam pl. 117, Type III (VI), Class I, var. 1 (p.
457).
916 Monogram of IX in field. 4.43 g 21mm | II-
lus. (< 2) Lacam pl. 117, Type III (VI), Class III,
var. 2.3 (wrongly as BM) (p. 458).
917 As last, but CORMOB in ex. 4.47 g 21 mm |
Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 119, Type III (VI), Class
III, var. 2.2 (p. 461).
918 8-pointed star in field. Rev. legend breaks REI —
PV-BLI 4.32 g 21mm J Illus. (x 2) Lacam
pl. 124, Type III (V), “Hors série” (p. 480).
919 Christogram in field. 4.49 g 20mm | Illus.
(x 2) Lacam pl. 117, Type III (VI), Class II, var.
3 (p. 457).
(b) With cloaked bust and no shield. C 6
Ravenna
Obv. DNANTHE MIVSPFAVG Bust three-quarters
facing, wearing paludamentum and holding spear.
Rev. As last, legend breaking R — EIPV — B, RV in field
920 4.05g 20mm | Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 109,
Type V-A, Class II (p. 437).
Milan
Obv. DNANTHE MIVSPEAVG Similar bust.
Rev. As last, but legend breaking RE—IP-—VB, A’s
barred, and MD (ligatured) in field.
921 4.26g 21mm 7 Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 123,
Type II (V), Class II, Type 2 (p. 478).
922 Obv. legend breaks EM — IVS, A in rev. legend
unbarred 4.30 g 20mm ff UB pl. xu.117-18;
illus. (X 2) Lacam pl. 123, Type II (V), Class II,
Type 1, var. 1 (p. 478).
Rome
Obv. DNANTHEM IVSPFAVG Similar bust, but hel-
met without customary frontal ornament.
Rev. As last, but legend breaks R — EIP — VB, A’s barred,
and monogram of RMA in field.
923 444g 21mm | IIlus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 112,
Type II (V), Class III, var. 1.8 (p. 448).
924 Obv. legend breaks E-MI 4.45 g 20mm |
Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 112, Type II (V), Class III,
var. 1.7 (p. 448).
925 Same obv. break as last but ends C, not G; pellet
below monogram in rev. field 4.49 g 21mm |
Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 113, Type II (V), Class III,
var. 2.5 (p. 448).
Semissis, AV. Chi-Rho in wreath. C 15
Rome
Obv. DNANTHEM IVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. SALVSREIPVBLICAE Chi-Rho in wreath; be-
neath, COMOB
926 Portrait identical with that of 928 2.19 g 17 mm
) Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 131, Class II, var. 3.1
(p. 506).
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. C 22—5. Mint attributions
are based on legend, lettering, and wreath forms.
Milan
Obv. DNANTEHEMIVSPERPETVAC (VA ligatured,
and intrusive E in Anthemius’ name). Bust r. (pearl dia-
dem).
Rev. Cross in wreath of straggly leaves; beneath,
COMOB
927 147g 14mm J UB pl. xi1.146; illus. (x 2)
Lacam pl. 133, Milan, Type 1.1 (p. 514).
911. 67.35.13; Ulrich-Bansa 20.vi. 1967 920. 48.17.993; Peirce, from Bourgey 7.x. 1926 924. 48.17.987; Peirce, from Schulman x.1931
912. 67.35.14; prov. as last 921. 67.35.12; Ulrich-Bansa 20.vi. 1967 925. 48.17.989; Peirce, from Schulman iii.1931
913. 67.35.15; prov. as last 922. 67.35.11; prov. as last 926. 48.17.997; Peirce, from Schulman x.1931
914. 67.35.16; prov. as last 923. 48.17.988; Peirce form SLCC 1927. Pos- 927. 48.17.999; Peirce, from Platt 1.1928
. Whittemore
. 56.5; Hess sale 27.iii.1956, lot 448
. 48.17.992; Peirce, from Spink 9.viii. 1929
. 58.12; Santamaria sale 24.11.1958, lot
1140
. Whittemore
sibly this and the next two coins are from
a Roman find of the late 1920s of whose
existence Grierson was informed in the
1950s. 923 and 925 are FDC and have the
same slightly pitted surface with traces of
gray soil incrustation. See also 933.
PLATE 36
ANTHEMIUS (2)
‘
> mn
(ae be \
5 pas
+
~
al
i
wet
ee
_ a
1 ANGER
~
‘
.
*
ss
»
iy G
ANTHEMIUS (2) cont.
Obv.
Rev.
928
929
Rome
DNANTHE MIVSPFAVC Bust r. (pearl diadem).
As last, but leaves tightly packed.
Portrait identical w. that of 926. 1.43 g 13 mm
1 Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 132, Type II, var. 4.2
(p. 510).
Same, but different portrait and DNANTHEM-
IVSPERPETAVG.1.46 g 14mm \ Illus. (x 2)
Lacam pl. 132, Type I.1 (p. 508).
Nummus, AE Monogram in wreath. C 1; LRBC 874
Obv. DNANTHEMIVS[ Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Monogram of the letters ANTHE in wreath; be-
neath, RM
928. 48.17.998; Peirce, from Ciani xi.1925
929. 55.12; Ratto 28.xi.1955
930. 48.17.1001; Peirce
930
931
153g 12mm |
DINJANT[ 1.38 g 12mm ¢
Forgery of nummus(?), AE
Obv. DNANTHEMIVSPPAVC Bust r. (linear diadem).
Rev. Monogram, but inverted in relation to the wreath,
and mm off flan.
932
931. 56.13.70; Grierson; from Seaby
17.x.1945, ex Grantley 2777
1.08 g 15mm f (in relation to wreath). The
straggly leaves of the wreath would be appro-
priate to Milan of the period of Nepos, and the
coin is probably a forgery of the last century, per-
haps for a supposed tremissis type.
932. 48.17.1000; Peirce; from Bourgey
7.x.1926
EUPHEMIA, GLYCERIUS, JULIUS NEPOS,
and ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS
EUPHEMIA 467-472?
Rome
Solidus, AV. Victory holding long cross. C 1 (but reading
EVFI1). The contrast between this and 934 (w. RM) is dis-
cussed on pp. 270-1.
Obv. DNAELMARCEVFEMIAEPFAVG Bust r.
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCCX Victory standing |., holding
long cross. In ex., COMOB
933 449g 21mm | The surface suggests that this
may be from the same hoard as 923-5. Illus. (x
2) Lacam pl. 127, Type I, var. b.3 (p. 492).
Solidus, AV. Ceremonial issue, probably for the marriage
of Alypia and Ricimer in 467. C—; not in Lacam. Unique.
Obv. DNEVFYMI APFAVG Facing bust; crown with
cross, six pinnacles, and long pendilia.
Rev. GLORIAREI PV BLICAE ‘Two facing female fig-
ures nimbate, wearing crowns with pinnacles and pendilia,
and each holding a gl. cr. In field, R M; in ex., COMOB
934 3.69 g (pierced) 19 mm | Both sides worn,
esp. the face on obv.
GLYCERIUS
5 March 473 — 19 or 24 June 474
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. Emperor standing, w. one foot on stool.
Obv. DNGLYCERI VSFPAVG Bust r. (pearl or rosette
diadem).
Rev. VICTORI AAVGG Emperor standing facing,
holding long cross and Victory on globe, placing one foot
on stool. In field, R V; in ex., COMOB or COMOB*
Var.(a) Left foot on stool. C 1
935 Pearl diadem, obv. inscr. breaks R — I, |. foot on
stool, COMOB in ex. 4.35 g 20mm _ | Illus.
(x 2) Lacam pl. 138, Type 1, var. a (p. 561).
Var.(b) Right foot on stool. C 3 (but w. GGG)
936 Rosette diadem, r. foot on stool, COMOB>* in
ex. 4.29g 20mm | Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 138,
Type 3.1 (p. 562).
933. 48.17.1002; Peirce, from Spink 2.i11.1929
934. 75.2; MMAG Basel sale 52, 19.vi.1975, lot x.1931
808; acq. by the firm in the Near East
935. 48.17.1004; Peirce, from Prince Philipp
sale, lot 597
936. 48.17.1003; Peirce, from Schulman
937. 48.17.1005; Peirce
Milan
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. C 7
Obv. DNGLYCERIVSFPAVG Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Cross in wreath w. straggly leaves; in ex., COMOB
937 144g 14mm UB pl. xu1.148; illus. (x 2)
Lacam pl. 141, no. 5 (p. 570).
JULIUS NEPOS
19 June 474 — 9 May 480
First Period: to 28 August 475
Ravenna
Solidus, AV. Two armored standing figures. C —
Obv. DNIVLIVS NEPVSIVC Helmeted and cloaked
bust, three-quarters facing, w. spear behind head.
Rev. SALSR EIPV BLICAE Two armored standing fig-
ures facing, each holding a spear and, between them jointly,
a gl. cr. In field, RV with two pellets beneath; in ex.,
COMOB
938 3.73g 20mm | Letters badly formed and
inscr. blundered as above. Design likewise, e.g., in
the absence of a hand holding a spear. See above,
p. 277. Illus. (x 3) Lacam pl. 144 (Rome, Type
1), (x 6) pl. 145 (pp. 598-601).
Solidus, AV. Victory and long cross. C 6
Obv. DNIVLNE POSPFAVC Armored bust three-
quarters facing.
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC: Victory standing |. holding
long cross. In cross, RV; in ex., COMOB
939 434g 20mm | A vertical stroke under the
lower horizontal bar of the F suggests that the
die-sinker hesitated over whether to inscribe PE.
Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 151, Type 2, var. c (p.
619).
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. C 16
Obv. Inscr. as last. Bust r. (pearl diadem).
Rev. Cross in wreath. In ex., COMOB
940 1.45¢ 13mm | Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 171,
Group I, Type 1.1 (p. 683).
938. 61.11; Kricheldorf sale, 12.xii.1961, lot 26
939. 57.15; “Foreign Ambassador” sale, lot 15
940. 48.17.1006; Peirce
PLATE 37
EUPHEMIA—ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS
C
\
&
Lai
ren
.
4
:
, ASS
< VPs
7 -
Py “ae
x
939
938
937
936
EUPHEMIA—ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS cont.
Siliqua, AR. Roma seated on throne C 13
Obv. As last.
Rev. VRBS ROMA Roma seated |. on throne, holding
in r. hand a globe surmounted by Victory and in I. a long
scepter. In ex., RVPS
941 Reads VRBIS: last letter of ROMA and of RVPS
off flan 2.07 g 16mm \
Half-siliqua, AR. Ravenna standing on prow. C 15
Obv. As last.
Rev. Ravenna standing |. on prow, holding scepter and
cornucopia. In field, R V
942 DNI[ JPSPEFAVC Name of ruler not quite cer-
tain. 0.86 g 12 mm
Milan
Solidus, AV. As 939, but M D in field, and eight-pointed star
after CCC. C 5; UB pl. xiv.152-4
943 444g 19mm f Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 158,
Group II, Series C.3 (p. 636).
944 4.26 g (pierced and worn) 20mm f Illus. La-
cam pl. 155, Group II, Series A, Type 1.1 and
again on the same plate as Type 3 (pp. 630, 631).
945 441g 20mm f IIllus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 155,
Group II A, Type 2.1 (p. 630).
Rome
Solidus, AV. As last, but a star in the r. field instead of a
mint-mark, and rev. inscr. ends CCC: C6
946 434g 19mm | Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 147a,
Type 3.1 (p. 605).
Tremissis, AV. As 940, but w. different form of wreath. C
16 ff
947 146g 12mm \ IIlus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 171, as
Ravenna Group I, Type 1.1 (p. 683).
Arles
Solidus, AV. As 939, but w. A R in rev. field, and the inscr.
ends CCC. C6
ROMULUS AUGUSTULUS
31 October 476 — early September 476
Milan
Solidus, AV. Victory holding long cross. C 5; UB —-
Obv. DNROMVLVSA GVSTVSPFAVG (AV ligatured)
Armored bust three-quarters facing.
Rev. VICTORI AAVCCC Victory standing 1., holding
long cross; in r. field, star; in ex., COMOB
949 442g 20mm {7 The cross-hatching near the
edge of obv. and rev. presumably reproduces the
texture of a previous container. Illus. (x 2) La-
cam pl. 183, Type 2, var. a (p. 732).
Tremissis, AV. Cross in wreath. C 11; UB pl. x1v.170-2
Obv. DNROMVLVSACVSTVSPFAVC (AV ligatured)
Bust r.
Rev. Cross in wreath; in ex., COMOB
950 146g 13mm | Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 185,
Milan, Type 1.2 (p. 740).
JULIUS NEPOS
Second Period: Late 476 — 9 May 480
Milan
Solidus, AV. As 939, but without pellets after rev. inscr. and
MD instead of RV in field. C 5 var.; UB pl. x1v.149-50
951 4.28g 21mm | Lacam, “Salona,” no. 3 (p.
706).
952 442g 21mm f Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 160,
Group IV, Type 2.3 (p. 642).
953 NIPOS 4.41 g 20mm 7 Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl.
160, Group IV, Type 2.2 (p. 642).
954 Rev. inscr. ends CCC:;, pellet on either side of
COMOB 4.41 g 20mm 7 Illus. (x 2) Lacam
pl. 159, Group III, var. b.1 (p. 641).
Tremissis, AV. As 947, but straggly wreath of Milan type.
UB pls. xm1.163—8, x1v.169
948 435g 22mm | Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 166, 955 136g 14mm | Illus. (x 2) Lacam pl. 173,
no. I (p. 670). Type 4, var. b.3 (wrongly as of Bologna, the fig-
ures 2 and 3 being also accidentally interchanged
on the plate) (p. 689).
941. 69.73; Fred Baldwin sale, lot 470; from a 946. 57.14; “Foreign Ambassador” sale, lot 457 951. 67.23.25; Ulrich-Bansa 20.vi.1967
Horsky sale, lot 4629 947. 48.17.1007; Peirce, from SLCC viii. 1924 952. 67.23.26; prov. as last
942.
943.
944.
945.
48.17.1264; Peirce
67.35.21; Ulrich-Bansa 20.vi. 1967
56.6.17; Grierson, from Spink 1946, ex
Sir Samuel Boulton coll.
67.35.22; Ulrich-Bansa 20.vi. 1967
948.
949.
950.
55.9; Santamaria
48.17.1008; Peirce, from Schulman
x.1931
48.17.1009; Peirce, from Vogel sale 11, lot
991
953.
954.
955.
67.23.24; prov. as last
67.23.23; prov. as last
70.9; Longuet sale, lot 290
Accession
Number
46.4
46.8
47.2.3
48.17.94
95
110
111
843
909
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
934
935
936
938
939
940
941
942
943
CONCORDANCES
1. DUMBARTON OAKS COLLECTION
Provenance
Brummer
Gans
Shaw
”
Catalogue
Number
364
448
765
19
429
282
449
543
544
897
898
189
127
847
713
716
696
694
786
702
779
778
747
790
766
760
708
761
742
736
735
740
734
815
816
827
828
829
830
793
792
796
797
799
802
471
Accession
Number
48.17.944
945
946
947
948
949
950
952
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
963
964
965
967
968
970
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
986
987
988
989
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
Provenance
Peirce
”
Catalogue
Number
805
807
795
810
811
809
813
819
820
821
837
841
842
843
844
850
854
856
858
859
870
873
871
868
869
874
875
876
884
879
887
888
889
901
924
923
925
917
920
909
910
903
926
928
927
472
Accession
Number
48.17.1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1033
1034
1035
1037
1038
1039
1040
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
Provenance
CONCORDANCE 1
Catalogue
Number
932
930
933
935
936
937
940
947
949
950
77
78
210
215
251
252
157
160
158
9]
220
219
221
222
164
165
101
105
Accession
Number
48.17.1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1082
1083
1084
1085
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1102
1103
1106
1107
1109
1112
1113
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
Provenance
Peirce
”
DUMBARTON OAKS COLLECTION 473
Accession Provenance Catalogue Accession Provenance Catalogue
Number Number Number Number
48.17.1125 Peirce 294 48.17.1196 Peirce 498
1126 i 475 1197 " 495
1128 " 289 1198 499
1131 346 1201 . 500
1132 ‘i 318 1203 ? 496
1133 7 419 1204 ¥ 509
1134 " 420 1205 . 501
1138 7 427 1206 : 506
1139 . 412 1207 : 507
1140 . 370 1208 ‘ 512
1141 5 374 1209 " 517
1142 ‘ 376 1210 i 520
1143 : 353 1211 7 522
1144 " 432 1212 : 524
1145 , 378 1213 7 525
1146 " 396 1216 7 553
1147 . 386 1217 7 559
1149 7 323 1218 ” 558
1150 7 324 1219 . 556
1151 " 358 1221 i 537
1152 . 388 1222 . 535
1153 . 389 1224 . 541
1154 i 399 1225 " 588
1155 . 434 1226 ; 550
1156 ? 328 1231 : 584
1157 : 392 1232 F 586
1158: " 308 1235 . 562
1159 ‘ 334 1236 ‘ 566
1160 " 299 1237 . 567
1162 312 1238 ‘ 628
1163 ¥ 300 1239 : 600
1164 5 337 1240 r 629
1165 " 335 1241 , 630
1166 " 330 1242 . 631
1167 i 331 1243 E 638
1168 . 363 1244 " 643
1170 : 365 1245 7 654
1171 349 1246 . 650
1172 " 456 1248 653
1174 . 459 1249 ; 671
1177 7 463 1250 7 681
1179 462 1251 " 656
1180 : 473 1252 . 682
1181 ‘ 441 1253 . 660
1182 r 436 1254 " 659
1183 u 443 1255 ¥ 661
1184 " 445 1256 : 662
1187 . 446 1257 . 610
1188 7 477 1258 P 612
1189 " 481 1259 " 607
1191 . 485 1261 . 613
1192 : 487 1262 " 614
1193 514 1263 ' 617
1194 : 492 1264 7 942
1195 ¥ 497 1265 7 621
474 CONCORDANCE 1
Accession Provenance Catalogue Accession Provenance Catalogue
Number Number Number Number
48.17.1266 Peirce 619 56.6.43 Grierson 635
1267 r 624 44 sd 636
3862 ’ 846 45 ™ 677
3865 . 798 46 of 685
3874 - 851 47 " 688
55.5.1 MMAG Basel 555 48 id 608
2 sf 554 49 ai 609
55.9 Santamaria 948 56.9 Bellinger 532
55.11 Ratto 895 56.13.1 Grierson 5
55.12 Ratto 929 9 af 7
55.20 MMAG Basel 594 3 r 6
55.21 Ratto 803 4 . 9
22 . 838 5 2 88
24 ud 666 6 . 86
56.5 Hess 916 7 . 218
56.6.1 Grierson 744 8 ‘3 95
2 : 771 9 * 93
3 715 10 af 18
4 . 737 11 ud 17
5 7 739 12 - 119
6 vi 804 13 . 123
7 : 862 14 ’ 12
8 7 861 15 : 14
9 ai 835 16 . 116
10 . 857 17 ‘ 244
1] . 845 18 . 34
12 . 855 19 : 134
13 . 877 90 af 35
14 . 885 91 . 57
15 . 902 99 : 59
16 ° 908 293 " 60
17 ? 944 294 af 63
18 . 61 26 fm 36
19 . 81 27 . 4]
20 7 216 28 a 182
22 " 296 29 " 183
23 , 316 30 . 247
24 . 360 31 sd 47
25 = 359 32 . 145
26 * 375 33 7 147
27 . 431 34 4 148
28 . 352 35 . 149
29 " 385 36 : 66
30 - 356 37 af 71
31 4 454 38 ” 194
32 . 458 39 " 202
33 3 457 40 ” 203
34 sd 478 4] : 197
35 . 482 42 ” 206
36 = 518 43 ‘3 199
37 534 44 _ 205
38 J 587 45 sf 200
39 ud 592 46 J 204
40 . 595 47 af 249
41 " 602 48 of 791
42 ¥ 599 49 : 697
Accession
Number
56.13.50
51
100
56.23.2529
2533
2534
2535
Provenance
Grierson
"
DUMBARTON OAKS COLLECTION
Catalogue
Number
755
700
703
704
759
706
707
763
711
720
721
733
717
718
741
800
801
822
853
900
931
403
407
433
344
345
494
560
572
582
583
585
565
570
618
627
655
689
604
658
663
605
731
342
878
508
2
237
714
315
421
372
367
461
483
447
Accession
Number
57.4.51
52
112
113
114
115
116
57.12
58.8
58.11
12
58.17
58.191.53
58.182
Provenance
Friend
“Foreign Am-
bassador”
”
Grierson
Tinchant
Grierson
MMAG Basel
Spink
Seaby
Hess
Santamaria
MMAG Basel
Istanbul
"“
Zacos
Istanbul
Franceschi
Hecht
Hess-Bank Leu
Platt
"
"
Glendining
Vinchon
MMAG Basel
Grierson
475
Catalogue
Number
596
601
789
350
824
437
455
723
834
946
939
82
269
460
533
651
812
361
886
620
848
832
79
571
$95
863
918
794
32
238
243
128
283
313
209
745
304
214
bale
896
767
390
253
310
751
691
724
738
743
686
563
264
772
774
773
476
Accession
Number
60.56
60.62
63
60.85
60.87
60.90
60.117
118
60.125.1301
61.11
61.19
62.5
62.11
62.13
62.24
63.1
63.2
64.8
65.8
66.1
66.2
66.3
Provenance
MMAG Basel
Hess
Seaby
MMAG Basel
Glendining
MMAG Basel
Schindler
Kricheldorf
Ars et Nummus
Hess-Bank Leu
Sternberg
Seaby
Spink
MMAG Basel
Hess-Bank Leu
Spink
Kress
Spink
Bank Leu
Hess-Bank Leu
MMAG Basel
”"
”
Ulrich-Bansa
CONCORDANCE 1
Catalogue
Number
872
864
866
769
785
750
752
161
159
938
849
72
428
68
670
667
722
505
690
606
305
664
687
530
632
701
726
223
444
453
589
590
591
880
881
894
893
890
891
892
922
921
911
912
913
914
907
906
904
905
943
945
954
953
951
Accession
Number
67.35.26
Provenance
Ulrich-Bansa
Crippa
Niggeler III
Blom
Vinchon
Bank Leu
Vinchon
MMAG Basel
Hess-Bank Leu
Bank Leu
Mrs. Bliss
Platt
Mango
H. Schulman
Franceschi
Fred Baldwin
Franceschi
Baldwin
Ars et Nummus
Spink
Longuet
”“
Tyler
Kunst u. Miin-
zen
”
Monmouth
Stamps
Franceschi
”
Catalogue
Number
952
674
678
676
675
680
679
306
616
833
825
818
831
867
561
]
329
307
684
783
347
Si7
775
98
242
860
826
823
852
502
598
899
94]
693
764
756
782
163
882
955
193
195
198
683
673
40
53
288
709
865
3
155
156
DUMBARTON OAKS COLLECTION—WHITTEMORE LOAN
477
Accession Provenance Catalogue Accession Provenance Catalogue
Number Number Number Number
71.8 Franceschi 250 71.29. Baldwin 705
9 . 692 af 757
71.10 Baldwin 348 . 246
71.11 MMAG Basel 770 si 297
71.12 : 806 71.30 Ratto 719
13 7 513 71.32 MMAG Basel 727
14 af 452 33 F 808
71.23 Ars et Nummus 729 34 7 817
24 : 338 71.37.2 . 69
71.25.1 Grierson 336 71.37.3 Grierson 135
2 ‘ 510 : 730
4 . 564 . 394
5 " 568 . 393
71.26.1 Ars et Nummus 710 74.10 Bank Leu 672
z 758 74.24 Sternberg ‘pe
3 . 762 75.2 MMAG Basel 934
4 7 728 76.11 . 665
71.27.1 Porter 239 79.3 Baldwin 298
71.28.1 Seaby 1] 79.19 Bank Leu 515
z 7 23 20 7 549
3 . 24 79.25 Baldwin 292
4 sf 64 26 . 278
5 id 261 27 f 293
6 m 187 79.28 Baldwin 291
7 : 44 79.29 Bank Leu 391
8 ” 45 80.1 Baldwin 435
9 ™ 46 81.1 . 270
10 48 85.7 Sternberg 548
1] 7 51 86.5 Baldwin 814
12 . 50 86.6.1 Grierson 883
13 " 49 2 " 262
14 . 188 3 vf 257
15 " 132 4 7 311
16 if 136 5 . 340
17 : 92 6 7 787
18 af 97 f | ” 788
19 5 102 8 " 768
20 7 100 9 " 698
21 4 122 10 . 699
22 : 140 11 4 732
23 : 141 87.1 Baldwin 74
24 id 144
2. DUMBARTON OAKS, WHITTEMORE LOAN
Loan Catalogue Loan Catalogue Loan Catalogue
Number Number Number Number Number Number
8 839 14 319 18 753
11 322 15 746 19 211
12 320 16 748 20 212
13 321 17 776 21 217
478 CONCORDANCES 2, 3
Loan Catalogue Loan Catalogue Loan Catalogue
Number Number Number Number Number Number
22 111 46 382 70 529
23 110 47 387 71 528
24 80 48 381 72 538
25 103 49 383 73 542
26 55 50 400 74 547
27 314 51 405 75 539
28 295 52 333 76 649
29 366 53 464 77 540
30 414 54 465 78 642
3] 425 55 466 79 637
32 426 56 467 80 633
33 413 57 468 81 639
34 410 58 469 82 644
35 417 59 470 84 646
36 422 60 471 85 647
37 416 61 479 86 648
38 418 62 476 87 623
39 423 63 484 88 625
40 41] 64 488 774 401
4] 415 65 493 775 408
4? 371 66 439 776 404
43 355 67 523 777 402
44 379 68 526 778 409
45 384 69 527 779 406
3. FOGG MUSEUM, WHITTEMORE COINS
The numbers of the Whittemore coins in the Fogg Museum catalogued in this volume are as follows:
4,8, 27, 30, 33, 37, 52, 56, 75-6, 83-4, 87, 90, 354, 357, 362, 368-9, 373, 380, 397-8, 424, 430,
94, 96, 99, 104, 107-9, 114, 118, 120~—1, 125-6, 438, 440, 442, 450-1, 472, 474, 480, 486, 489-
133, 150—4, 162, 167, 170, 173, 175, 178, 180, 91, 503-4, 511, 516, 519, 521, 531, 536, 545-6,
184, 186, 207-8, 213, 225, 228, 230, 232, 234, 551, 557, 569, 593, 597, 603, 611, 615, 622, 626,
240, 245, 260, 263, 273, 275-6, 281, 285-6, 634, 640-1, 645, 652, 657, 668-9, 695, 712, 725,
301-3, 309, 317, 325-7, 332, 339, 341, 343, 351, 749, 754, 777, 780-1, 784, 836, 840, 915, 919.
Index |
OBVERSE INSCRIPTIONS
Account is not taken of breaks in inscriptions, minor spelling mistakes (e.g., PREP for PERP),
or aberrant letter forms (e.g., A without bar, C for G, AVC with the first two letters ligatured,
giving NC). DN and PF are each treated as a unit. The inscriptions on the nummi of the mid-
fifth century are usually only legible in part, so it is not always clear to what group a particular
coin belongs. Page references are in ordinary type, catalogue references in boldface.
AEL ARIADNE AVG, 606
AEL EVDOCIA AVG, 454-75
AEL EVDOXIA AVG, 133, 273-94; (Lic. Eud.)
245, 872-3
AEL PLACIDIA AVG, 230, 824
AEL PVLCHERIA AVG, 152, 436-53
AEL VERINA AVG, 170, 593-8
AEL ZENONIS AVG, 180, 627
CONSTANTIVS AVG, 226
DDD NNN GGG (on exagium), 30
DN AEL MARC EVFEMIAE PF AVG, 260, 933
DN AELIAE MARCIAE PP EVFIMIIC (?), 260
DN ANICIVS OLYBRIVS AVG, 262
DN ANTHEMIVS PE AVG, 921-2
DN ANTHEMIVS PERPET AVG, 258, 909-13,
927, 929
DN ANTHEMIVS PF AVG, 903-8, 914, 920,
923-6, 928
DN ANTHEMIVS PP AVG, 259, 932
DN ARCADI AVG, 132, 218
DN ARCADIVS PF AVG, 1-83, 92-272
DN ARCADIVS PF AVGVSTVS, 112, 84-91
DN AVITVS PERP AVC, 876
DN AVITVS PERP F AVG, 875
DN AVITVS PF AVG, 249
DN BASIL ET MAR, 179
DN BASILISCI ET MARCI CG, 9, 179, 619
DN BASILISCI ET MARC P AVG, 179, 620-6
(MABS for MARC on 620)
DN BASILISCVS PERT AVG, 616
DN BASILISCVS PF AVG, 617-18
DN BASILISCVS PP AVG, 607-15
DN CONSTANTINVS PF AVG, 215, 792-807
DN CONSTANTIVS AVG, 226
DN CONSTANTIVS PF AVG, 225, 815-16
DN ELIA EVDOXIA PF AVG, 245, 871
DN EVFYMIA PF AVG, 260, 934
DN GALLA PLACIDIA PF AVG, 230, 817-18,
825-33
DN GLYCERIVS FP AVG, 264, 935-7
DN GLYCERIVS PF AVG, 264
DN HONORI AVG, 132, 218
DN HONORIIVS PF AVG, 206, 691
DN HONORIVS AVG (on exagium), 30
DN HONORIVS PF AVG, 692-791
DN IOHANNES PF AVG, 227, 819-23
DN IOVINVS PF AVG, 220, 808-11
DN IVL MAIORIANVS PF AVG, 250, 878,
882-3, 886
DN IVLIVS MAIORIANVS PF AVG, 250, 877,
880-1, 884-5
DN IVLIVS NEPVS IVC, 267, 938
DN IVL NEPOS PF AVG, 939-48, 951-5
DN IVST GRAT HONORIA PF AVG, 242, 866-9
DN LEO, 571-2, 582-6
DN LEO ET ZENO PP AVG, 172, 599-603
DN LEONIS PP AVG, 560
DN LEO(N)TIO PERPS AVG, 190
DN LEO PERPET AVG, 162, 167, 168, 515-59,
561, 588-92
DN LEO PERPETVVS AVG, 162, 166, 167, 168,
169, 587
DN LEO PF AVG (or variant), 562-70, 573-81
DN LIBIVS SEVERVS PERPETV AVG, 890,
893-4
DN LIBIVS SEVERVS PE AVG, 889, 891-2
DN LIBIVS SEVERVS PF AVG, 887-8, 895-6,
899
DN LIB SEVERVS PF AVG, 897-8, 900
DN MAIORIANVS PF AVG, 879
DN MARCIANVS PF AVG, 476-514
DN ONORIVS PF AVG, 196, 208
DN PETRONIVS MAXIMVS PF AVG, 874
DN PLA VALENTINIANVS PF AVG, 841-59
DN PLA VALENTNIANVS PF AVG, 235, 835
DN PROC ANTHEMIVS PF AVG, 901-2
DN ROM AVGVSTVS PF AVG, 270
DN ROMVL AVGVSTVS PF AVG, 270
DN ROMVLVS AGVSTVS PF AVG, 949-50
DN THEODOSIVS PF AVG, 295-435
479
480 INDEX 1
DN VALENTINIANVS PF AVG, 235, 836-40, DOMINIS NOSTRIS, 61, 224
860-5 DOMINO NOSTRO, 61, 224
DN ZENO ET LEO NOV CAES, 6, 9, 181, 628 DOMINORVM NOSTR P AVG, 224
DN ZENO PE AVG (or variant), 657-68 FL CL CONSTANTINVS AVG, 216, 217
DN ZENO PERP AVC, 182, 183, 629-56, 664-9, GALLA PLACIDIA AVG, 232, 834
672-85, 690 IMP ZENO FELICISSIMO SEN AVG, 186, 689
DN ZENO PERP F AVG, 670-1, 686-8 IMP ZENO SENPER AVG, 186
DN ZENO PERPET AVG, 174 LICINIA EVDOXIA PF AVG, 870
DN ZENO RPPE AC, 604, 605 (?) PRISCVS ATTALVS PF AVG, 77, 812-14
Index 2
REVERSE INSCRIPTIONS
This list includes inscriptions of coins not in the catalogue but referred to in the text. Inscrip-
tional breaks and aberrant letter forms are treated as in Index 1. Type descriptions include only
the most distinctive features. Page references are in ordinary type, catalogue references in bold-
face.
b E (for Berina, i.e., Verina) in field
Standing figure holding scepter transversely
(Leo I) 7, 76, 164, 166, 246, 582-6
BONO REIPVBLICAE
Victory with long cross (Honoria) 85, 242, 866;
(Lic. Eud.) 85, 244
CARTAGINE PP
Victory adv. 1. w. wreath and palm (Carthage)
61, 224
CONCORDIA AGV
Two emps. standing (Th. II) 140, 148-9, 435
CONCORDIA AVG
Empress seated facing (Pul.) 154; (Eudocia), 45,
156, 475
Victory facing (Th. IL) 140, 144
CONCORDIA AVGG
Cpolis seated, looking r., w. Victory on globe
(Arc.) 43, 100, 124-5, 125-6, 207-17, 223,
238-49; (Th. II) 43, 139, 140, 141, 297-302,
313-18; (Hon.) 43, 196, 210, 211, 745-50,
756, 764-8
CONCORDIA AVGGG
Cpolis seated, looking r., w. globe (Arc.) 100-3,
110, 1, 71-2, 110-11
Cpolis seated, looking r., w. Victory on globe
(Th. II) 139, 295-305, 307; (Hon.) 196, 210-
12, 701, 769-71, 776-80, 785-6
Cpolis seated, looking r., holding shield w. VOT/
V/MVL/X (Arc.) 100, 107, 77-8
Cpolis seated, looking r., holding shield w. VOT/
X/MVLT/XV. (Arc.) 100, 118-19, 155-6
Cross (Arc.) 43, 126, 127, 253, 257, 261-2, 264
CONCORDIA AVGGGG
Cpolis seated, looking r., w. globe (Arc.) 86-7,
100, 101-2, 2-4
Cpolis seated, looking r., holding shield w. VOT/
V/MVL/X (Arc.) 100, 107, 77-8
CONCORDIA AVGV
Emp. standing (Th. II) 140
CONO...UWRO (?) (for Concordia Romanorum)
Emp. spurning captive (Zeno) 174, 604
481
EXAGIVM SOLIDI
On coin weight 30
FELICITER NUBTIIS
Three figures standing (Th. II) 85, 88, 145, 395;
(Marcian) 85, 158
GLOR(ia) ORVIS TERRAR(um)
Emp standing w. labarum and gl. cr. (Th. II) 85,
89, 140, 143-4, 359-60, 364-76; (Marcian)
158-9, 505; (Leo I, on AR, blundered) 165
GLORIA REIPVBLIC(A)E
Camp gate (Arc.) 106, 108, 64—5, 74
Roma and Cpolis seated holding shield w. VOT/
XV/MVL/XX (Th. ID) 141, 346
Two empresses standing (Euph.) 260-1, 934
GLORIA ROMANORVM
Consul seated facing (Arc.) 100, 102, 111, 72-3
Cpolis seated 1. (Arc.) 106, 107; (Th. II) 145
Emp. in chariot (Arc.) 106
Emp. and two captives (Hon.) 46, 207, 209,
733-4
Emp. and Victory in ship (Arc.) 99, 103, 105,
57-8
Emp. dragging captive (Arc.) 42, 104, 105-6, 62,
, 69
Emp. on horseback r. (Arc.) 41, 121, 122, 164-5,
174-5, 182-4, 187; (Hon.) 197, 703-5, 709,
711
Emp. standing, captive in field 1. (Arc.) 42, 98,
99, 103, 105, 5-9, 12-14, 16-18, 28-34, 36-
43, 47, 59-60
Emp. standing w. hand raised (Arc.) 111, 122,
163; (Th. II) 140-1, 146, 306; (Hon.) 210,
212, 782
Emp. standing w. labarum and globe (Arc.) 42,
120, 122, 166-73, 176-81, 185-6; (Hon.) 197,
697, 702, 706-8, 710
Emp. standing w. spear and shield (Th. II) 140,
141, 348; (Leo I) 163, 548-9
Empress seated facing (Eudoxia) 43, 134, 291-4
Roma and Cpolis seated (Th. II) 145, 377
Roma enthroned facing (Hon.) 204, 206, 740-1
482
GLORIA ROMANORYVM (cont.)
Soldier 1. w. long cross (Val. II) 238, 846
Three emps. standing (Arc.) 43, 125-6, 254—6,
258-60, 263; (Th. II) 43, 139-40, 308-12;
(Hon.) 43, 213, 772-5
Two emps. standing (Th. II) 45, 140, 142, 330-
1; (Hon.) 45, 213, 787-8
IMP XXXXII COS XVII.P.P.
Cpolis seated 1. w. gl. cr. (Th. Il) 7, 73, 85, 139,
146-8, 413-30; (Pul.) 153, 441-2; (Eudocia)
156, 459; (Plac.) 7, 232, 834; (Val. III) 240-1,
862; (Lic. Eud.) 7, 246, 872
IMP XXXXIIII COS XVIII
Consul seated facing (Th. II) 73, 148, 428
INVICTA ROMA
Victory adv. r. holding trophy and wreath (Zeno)
186-7, 689
INVICTA ROMA AETERNA
Roma enthroned facing (Attalus) 222-3, 812-13
NOVA SPES REIPVBLICAE
Victory seated inscribing XX/XXX on shield
(Arc.) 85, 100, 125, 127, 237, 250
PAX (or variant)
On banner held by two emps. (Anth.) 256-7,
903-8
RESTITVTOR REIP(ublicae)
Emp. standing (Constantine III) 216
Emp. raising woman (Attalus) 223
Emp. spurning captive (Jovinus) 220, 808
Roma seated (Jovinus) 220
SAL/REI/PVI (for Salus Reipublicae)
In wreath (Pul.) 153, 453; (Marcian) 159, 491-3;
(Leo I) 163, 550-2; (Zeno) (blundered) 85,
183, 655
SALVS MVNDI
Large jeweled cross (Olyb.) 85, 262
SALVS ORIENTIS FELICITAS OCCIDENTIS
Chi-Rho in wreath (Lic. Eud.) 85, 245
SALVS REIPVBLIC(A)E
Camp gate (Carthage) 224
Chi-Rho in wreath (Plac.) 85, 231, 818; (Hono-
ria) 243, 867; (Sev. III) 253—4, 896; (Anth.)
258, 926
Empress seated facing (Lic. Eud.) 244-5, 870
Two consular figures facing (Th. II) 8, 144, 150,
370-6; (Leo I) 163, 533; (Val. III) 235, 836-8
Two emps. holding banner w. PAX (or variant)
(Anth.) 256-7, 903-8
Two emps. holding gl. cr. (Anth.) 257-8, 909-
25; (Nepos) 267, 938
Two emps. holding long cross (Anth.) 256, 901-2
‘Two emps. seated facing (Leo II and Zeno) 181-
2, 600-3
Victory dragging captive 1. (Arc.) 42, 43, 114,
116-17, 92-108, 112, 114-15, 119-28, 131-6,
139-44, 148-9, 150-4; (Th. II) 150; (Hon.)
208, 698-700; (John) 46, 228, 822-3
Victory seated, inscribing Chi-Rho on shield (Eu-
doxia) 43, 133-4, 273-90; (Pul.) 152, 153-4,
436; (Eudocia, but misread) 156; (Verina) 170,
598; (Plac.) 230, 231, 817, 832
SALVS REIPVBLICAE C
‘Two emps. seated 9, 163
INDEX 2
SALVS RPVRLCA (for Reipublicae)
Emp. spurning captive (Leo I) 164, 561
SECVRITAS REIPVBLICAE
Emp. standing w. labarum and globe (Arc.) 107
Consul seated facing (Th. II) 141, 145, 347
SRI/REI/RVL (for SAL/REI/PVBL)
In wreath (Zeno) 183, 655
TOV/VIMV/MTI (for Votis multzs)
In wreath (Zeno) 183, 656
TRIVMFATOR GENT BARB
Emp. w. captive (Arc.) 108, 109, 129, 130; (Hon.)
85, 203
VICTORIA AAAVGGGG
Emp. spurning captive (Const. III) 215, 792
VICTORIA AG
Emp. standing w. labarum and gl. cr. (Th. II) 45,
144, 363
VICTORIA AVG
Emp. standing w. labarum and globe (Carthage)
224
Two Victories facing each other (Arc.) 102-3, 63
VICTORIA AVGG
Emp. spurning captive (Th. II) 87; (Arc.) 87
Emp. standing facing w. foot on stool (Glyc.) 264,
935-6
Roma seated 1. (Attalus) 223, 814
Two emps. seated (Arc.) 103, 104, 113, 114,
61,70
Victory inscribing XX/XXX on shield (Th. I)
143, 356; (Hon.) 210, 211, 790
Victory inscribing XV XXX on shield (Leo I) 163,
535-7
Victory adv. 1. w. wreath and palm (Hon.) 39,
46, 207, 209, 731-2; (Val. III) 39, 238, 847-8
VICTORIA AVGGG
Consul seated facing (Leo I) 162, 165, 530-1,
556-9
Emp. and human-headed serpent (Marcian) 160,
513; (Leo I) 166-7, 587, 589-90; (Val. III)
236-7, 841-4, 844-50, 854; (Petr. Max.) 247,
874; (Maj.) 251, 877, 880-1, 884; (Sev. III)
253, 887-95
Emp. spurning captive (Arc.) 87, 100, 119-21,
128-9, 161-2, 265-7, 269, 272; (Th. II) 149-
50, 349; (Hon.) 87, 196-7, 198-9, 201, 691-6,
712-14, 722-5, 735-6, 744; (Constantine III)
216-17, 793, 796—8, 803-5; (Constantius III)
225, 815; (John) 227, 228, 819; (Val. III) 235,
835; (Avitus) 248, 875
Emp. standing w. foot on lion (Th. II), 149;
(Hon.) 201, 742
Emp. standing w. labarum and captive (Maj.)
252, 879
Roma seated 1. (Constantine IIL) 216-17, 794—
5, 799-802, 806-7; (Jovinus) 220, 809-11
Two Victories facing (Arc.) 104
Victory adv. 1. w. wreath and palm (Arc.) 104,
106, 116, 117, 130-1, 67, 200, 202-3; (Maj.)
46, 252, 878, 883
Victory inscribing XX/XXX on shield (Th. II)
143, 429
Victory inscribing XX/VXX on shield (Th. IT)
148, 432; (Marcian) 158, 485-6; (Leo I) 163,
OBVERSE INSCRIPTIONS
535-7; (Basil.) 178; (Zeno) 183, 644-5 (fig.
blundered)
Victory 1., holding long cross (Pul.) 153, 443;
(Marcian) 158, 476-84; (Leo I) 162, 165, 167,
516-32, 534, 553-55, 591; (Verina) 170, 593-
4; (Leo II and Zeno) 172, 599; (Basil.) 178,
607-12, 616; (Basil. and Marcus) 178—9, 619—
24; (Zeno) 182, 184, 188—9, 629-43, 664-8,
670, 674-80, 685-7; (Val. II1) 241, 863—4;
(Euph.) 260, 933; (Nepos) 267-8, 939, 943-6,
948, 951—4; (Romulus) 269, 949
VICTORIA AVGVSTORVM
Victory adv. w. wreath and gl. cr. (Arc.) 107,
110-11, 127, 82—3, 251; (Th. II) 141, 320-7;
(Marcian) 158, 487-9; (Leo I) 163, 538-47;
(Basil.) 178, 613-15; (Basil. and Marcus) 179,
625-6; (Zeno and the Caesar Leo) 181-2, 628;
(Zeno) 183, 646—54; (Hon.) 210, 211, 751-4,
781; (Val. III) 235, 839-40
Victory adv. r. w. wreath and gl. cr. (Arc.) 114,
115, 128, 129, 268; (Hon.) 200, 202, 715, 727,
737-9; (John) 227, 820-1
Victory seated, inscribing VOT/V/MVL/X on
shield (Arc.) 107, 109, 79
Victory seated, inscribing VOT/X/MVLT/XX on
shield (Hon.) 200, 726; (Val. III) 237, 857
VICTORIA DOMINORVM (incorrect reading)
225
VICTORIA ROMANORVM
Victory adv. 1. w. wreath and palm (Arc.) 107,
127; (Leo I) 515; (Attalus) 223; (Constantius
III) 225-6, 816 (forgery)
VIRTVS EXERCITI
Emp. spurning captive (Arc.) 42, 111-12, 84-91,
113, 117-18, 122-30, 137-8, 145-7; (Leo I)
164-5, 560
Emp. crowned by Victory (Arc.) 43, 124, 125,
218-27, 224-36; (Hon.) 43, 213, 755, 757-63
VIRT(us) EXERC(iti) ROM(anorum)
Emp. dragging captive r. (Th. II) 148, 430-2
VIRTVS EXERCITVM
Emp. standing w. spear and shield (Hon.) 203,
205
VIRTVS EXERCITVS
Emp. standing w. spear and shield (Arc.) 129,
130, 270; (Hon.) 203, 205
VIRTVS ROMANORVM
Emp. standing w. globe and labarum (Arc.) 114,
115
Roma seated facing (Arc.) 104, 105, 68; (Sebas-
tian) 221
Roma seated 1. (Arc.) 130—1, 192-9, 204-5;
(Hon.) 204, 205, 716-18; (John) 228
VOT/MVLT/XXXX
In wreath (Th. II) 12, 84, 139, 146, 399-409;
(Marcian) 84, 159, 490
VOT (a) PVB(lica)
Camp gate (Val. IIT) 46, 239, 852
VOT/V in wreath
(Arc.) 42, 84, 99, 99, 101, 103, 105, 10-11, 15,
19-27, 35, 54-6
VOT/V/MVL/X
On shield held by Cpolis (Arc.) 100, 107, 76-8
483
VOT/V/MVLT/X
In wreath (Arc.) 84, 99, 108, 109, 71; (Hon.)
204, 205, 719-21; (“Constantius”) 226 (Ger-
manic imitation)
Inscribed by Victory on shield (Arc.) 33, 107,
109, 79
VOT/X/MVLT/XV
On shield held by Cpolis (Arc.) 100, 118-19,
155-6
VOT X MVLT XX
Consular fig. seated (Val. III) 239-40, 856
VOT/X/MVLT/XX
In wreath (Arc.) 42, 43, 64, 99, 101, 108, 109,
110, 111, 127, 44—6, 48-52, 75, 157-60, 252;
(Th. II) 140, 141; (Hon.) 12, 64, 210, 212,
783-4
Inscribed by Victory on shield (Hon.) 64, 200,
202, 726; (Val. III) 237, 857
VOT/XV/MVL/XX
On shield held by Roma and Cpolis (Th. II) 141,
346
VOT/XV/MVLT/XX
In wreath (Th. II) 141
VOT/XX
In wreath (Val. III) 46, 239, 853
VOT XX MVLT XXV
Consul seated facing (Zeno) 183
VOTA PLVRIA
Roma and Cpolis seated (Arc.) 128, 129
VOT XX MVLT XXX
Victory holding long cross (Th. II) 7, 88, 142-3,
350-5; (Pul.) 88, 152-3, 437-9; (Eudocia) 88,
156, 454—5; (Hon.) 88, 210, 211, 789; (Plac.)
7, 230-1, 824-8
VOT/XX/MVLT/XXX
In wreath (Arc.) 99, 101; (Th. II) 143, 357-8;
(Hon.) 84, 210, 211, 791
VOT/XXX
In wreath (Th. II) 140
VOT XXX MVLT XXXX
Cpolis seated 1. w. gl. cr. (Th. II) 12, 144-5, 146,
379-87, 390; (Pul.) 153; (Eudocia) 156, 457—
8; (Val. III) 240, 860-1
Emp. and human-headed serpent (Val. III) 240,
859
Emp. as consul w. kneeling woman (Val. III) 12,
240, 858
Two consuls seated (Th. II) 144-5, 378
Victory 1. holding long cross (Pul.) 153, 440;
(Eudocia) 156, 456
VOT/XXX/MVLT/XXXX
In wreath (Th. II) 146, 388-9
On shield held by Roma and Cpolis (Hon.) 12,
199, 202, 743
VOT XXXV MVLT XXXX
Consul seated facing (Th. II) 145, 391
VOTIS MVLTIS X
In wreath (Val. I) 54; (Nepos) 84 (false)
VRBS ROMA
Roma seated 1. (Arc.) 83, 104, 105, 122, 201;
(Hon.) 83, 204, 205—6; (Sebastian ) 221;
(John) 228; (Basil., forgery) 178; (Nepos) 267,
941
484 INDEX 2
VRBS ROMA FELIX XX/VXX
Roma standing (Arc.) 43, 44, 82, 93, 131, 132, Inscribed by Victory on shield (Th. II) 12, 138,
271; (Th. II) 149; (Hon.) 43, 44, 82, 93, 207, 148
208, 728-30 XX/XXX
VRTVS (for VIRTVS) ROMANORVM, 150-1, Inscribed by Victory on shield (Arc.) 100, 125,
238, 239 127, 237, 250; (Th. Il) 143, 356; (Hon.) 210,
VT/XXX/V (for VOT/XXX/V) 211, 790
In wreath (Th. ITI) 45, 140, 146, 148, 392-4 ZENO
XVXXX Emp. standing w. cross and globe (Zeno) 45, 174,
Inscribed by Victory on shield (Leo I) 163, 605
535-7
Index 3
OBVERSE AND REVERSE TYPES
This index includes types referred to in the text as well as those in the catalogue. References to
the latter are in boldface type. Descriptions are simplified, further details being available in the
text. Imperial busts are included only when they are in some way exceptional, the normal forms
being a profile bust facing right or, on Eastern and eventually on Western solidi, a three-quarter
facing bust wearing helmet and armor. Particular diadem forms (pearl or rosette) are not listed.
Details of monograms are given in the catalogue. When a seated figure is shown on a ship’s prow,
it is assumed that she represents Constantinopolis, not Roma.
Camp gate
On AE 3: (Arc.) 106, 356, 74
On AE 4: (Arc.) 64—5; (Carthage) 224; (Val. III)
239, 852
Chi-Rho in wreath
On sem.: (Pul.) 153, 444; (Eudocia) 156, 460;
(Plac.) 231, 818; (Sev. II1) 253—4, 896; (Anth.)
258, 926
On trem.: (Plac.) 231, 829-30
On half-siliqua: (Eudocia), 156; (Plac.) 231, 833;
(Sev. III) 254, 899
Chi-Rho on shield held by emp.: (Hon.) 199, 202,
743; (Val. III) 240, 859; (Maj.) 250-1, 877,
880-1, 884-5. See also Victory seated r., in-
scribing Chi-Rho on shield
Constantinopolis seated facing w. r. foot on prow,
looking r., holding scepter and globe
On sol.: (Arc.) 100, 101-2, 110, 1-4, 80-1, 110-
11
Constantinopolis seated as before, but w. Victory
on globe
On sol.: (Arc.) 100, 124—5, 207-17, 223, 242;
(Th. II) 139, 141, 295-6, 298, 303-5, 307,
313-18; (Hon.) 125, 196, 210, 211, 701, 745-
50, 756, 764—5, 767, 769-71, 776-80, 785-6
On AE 3: (Arc.) 126, 238-41, 243-9; (Th. II)
139, 297; (Hon.) 213, 766, 768
Constantinopolis seated as before, but holding
shield with vota inscription balanced on stand
On sol., shield w. VOT/V/MVL/X: (Arc.) 100,
107, 76-8
On sol., shield with VOT/X/MVLT/XV: (Arc.)
100, 118-19, 155-6
Constantinopolis seated 1., w. foot on prow, hold-
ing gl. cr. and scepter
On sol.: (Th. I]) 144, 146-8, 379-87, 390, 410-
27; (Pul.) 146, 441-2; (Eudocia) 146, 156,
457-9; (Plac.) 146, 232, 834; (Val. III) 146,
240-1, 860-2; (Lic. Eud.) 146, 246, 872
Consul, see Emp., consular bust. 1.; Emp. in consu-
lar costume; Emperors, two, in consular cos-
tume
Cross
On sol. with legend: (Olyb.) 85, 262
On AE 4, with legend: (Arc.) 126, 127, 253, 257,
261-2, 264
Cross, between alpha and omega, 216, 220
Cross, in wreath, without legend
On AE 4: (Th. II) 140, 142, 328, 332-45; (Car-
thage) 224
On trem.: (Pul.) 153, 445-50; (Eudocia) 156,
461-72; (Marcian) 160, 514; (Leo I) 168, 588;
(Verina) 170, 595—7; (Ariadne) 176, 606;
(Basil.) 178, 617; (Zeno) 189, 671, 681, 688;
(Plac.) 231, 831; (Val. III) 237, 845, 851, 855;
(Honoria) 243, 868—9; (Lic. Eud.) 245, 246,
871, 873; (Avitus) 249, 876; (Maj.) 251, 882,
885-6; (Sev. III) 254, 897-8; (Anth.) 258,
927-9; (Glyc.) 264, 937; (Nepos) 267, 268,
940, 947, 955; (Romulus) 269, 950
On siliqua: (Pul.) 153, 451-2; (Eudocia) 156,
473—4; (Plac.) 231
On AE 4: (Val. IIT) 241, 865
Eagle, with wings unfurled, looking 1., cross above
between wing tips
On half-siliqua: (Zeno) 185—6, 684
Emp. adv. r. w. labarum, dragging captive
On AE 3: (Arc.) 104, 105—6, 62, 66, 69
Emp. adv. r. w. shouldered trophy, dragging cap-
tive
On sol.: (Th. Il) 148, 430-2
Emp., bust, bearded: (Th. II) 138, 145, 146, 377-
485
486
Emp., bust, bearded (cont.)
8, 391, 428; (Leo I) 162, 163-4, 165, 515,
530-1, 548-9, 556-9; (Zeno) 183, 186—7, 689;
(John) 227-8, 819-23; (Avitus) 248, 875
Emp., bust facing, helmeted and cuirassed, holding
spear across body and shield w. Chi-Rho:
(Hon.) 199, 202, 743; (Val. III) 240, 859
Emp., bust facing, wearing paludamentum, hold-
ing spear: (Anth.) 257—8, 920-5; (Nepos) 267,
938
Emp., bust 1.: (Arc.) 111, 163; (Th. Il) 140, 141,
143, 145, 148, 306, 347, 348, 391, 428; (Leo I)
163, 549; (Hon.) 210, 212, 782
Emp., bust r., crowned by Manus Dei: (Arc.) 98, 99
103, 105, 5-9, 12-14, 16-18, 28-34, 36-43,
47, 57-60
Emp., bust, three-quarter facing, unusual features
On sol., cross or Christogram on cuirass: (Arc.)
125, 223, 242; (Th. II), 139, 298, 307; (Hon.)
211, 212, 756, 767; abnormal shield designs:
(Hon.) 211, 212, 756, 767, 769-71
On AE 3: (Arc.) 125-6, 238-41, 243-9; (Th. II)
139, 297, 299-302; (Hon.) 213, 766, 768
Emp., consular bust facing: (Hon.) 201
Emp., consular bust 1.: (Arc.) 100, 102, 106, 72—4;
(Th. II) 141, 145, 148, 347, 378, 391, 428;
(Leo I) 162, 165, 530-1, 556-9; (Zeno) 183;
(Val. III) 240, 856, 858
Emp., helmeted bust r.: (Hon.) 149, 189, 201, 742
Emp., helmeted bust r., holding spear and shield:
(Th. IL) 140, 141, 148, 346 (shield normal),
435 (shield obscure, perhaps absent); (Maj.)
251, 877, 880-1, 884—5 (shield w. Chi-Rho)
Emp., in consular costume, seated facing, raising
mappa in r. hand and holding cross-scepter
in 1.
On sol.: (Arc.) 100, 102, 106, 108, 111, 72; (Th.
II) 141, 145, 148, 347, 391, 428; (Leo I) 162,
165, 556-9; (Zeno) 183; (Val. III) 239—40,
856
On siliqua: (Arc.) 102, 111, 73
Emp., in consular costume, seated facing, raising
mappa in r. hand and holding eagle-topped
scepter in 1.
On sol.: (Hon.) 201
Emp., in consular costume, standing facing, hold-
ing out hand to kneeling woman on 1.
On medallion: (Val. III) 240
On sol.: (Val. III) 240, 858
Emp. on horseback, w. r. hand raised
On sesquisolidus: 34
On AE 3: (Arc.) 121, 122, 164-5, 174-5, 182-4,
187; (Hon.) 197, 703-5, 709, 711
Emp. standing facing, crowned by Manus Dei, hold-
ing cross and sword, w. his r. foot on recum-
bent lion
On sol.: (Th. IL) 149; (Hon.) 149, 199, 201, 742
Emp. standing facing, holding long cross and globe
On nummus: (Zeno) 174, 605
Emp. standing facing, holding long cross and Vic-
tory on globe, w. his r. foot on human-headed
serpent
On sol.: (Marcian) 160, 513; (Leo I) 166-7, 587,
INDEX 3
589-90; (Val. III) 236-7, 240, 841—4, 849-50,
854, 859; (Petr. Max.) 247, 874; (Maj.) 250-1,
877, 880-1, 884; (Sev. III) 253, 887-95
Emp. standing facing, holding spear and shield,
looking r., crowned by standing Victory
on AE 3: (Arc.) 124, 125, 218-22, 224-36;
(Hon.) 213, 755, 757-63
Emp. standing facing, w. labarum and captive
on AE 4: (Maj.) 252, 879
Emp. standing facing, w. labarum and gl. cr.
On sol.: (Th. Il) 143-4, 359-60, 364-69; (Mar-
cian) 158
On AE 4: (Th. II) 144, 363
Emp. standing facing, w. long cross and captive
On nummus: (Leo I) 164, 571-2
Emp. standing facing, w. long cross and Victory on
globe, placing r. or 1. foot on stool
On sol.: (Glyc.) 263—4, 935-6
Emp. standing facing, looking I., w. labarum and
shield, captive kneeling or seated in field 1.
On AE 2: (Arc.) 98, 99, 103, 105, 5—9, 12-14,
16-18, 28-34, 36-43, 47, 59-60
Emp. standing facing, looking r., holding labarum
and globe
On AE 2: (Arc.) 98, 120, 122, 166-73, 176-81,
185-6, 186; (Hon.) 197, 697, 702, 706-8,
710
On AE 4: (Carthage) 224
Emp. standing facing, nimbate, holding spear and
shield
On miliarense: (Arc.) 129-30, 270; (Th. II) 141,
348; (Marcian) 158—9, 505; (Leo I) 163, 548;
Zeno 184, 669; (Hon.) 203, 205
Emp. standing facing, nimbate, w. r. hand raised
and holding globe in 1.
On miliarense: (Arc.) 111, 163; (Th. II) 140-1,
306; (Hon.) 140-1, 210-12, 782
Emp. standing 1., holding long jeweled cross
On siliqua: (Val. III) 238, 846
Emp. standing 1., in ship steered by Victory, w. r.
hand raised and holding globe in 1.
On AE 2: (Arc.) 99, 103, 105, 57-8
Emp. standing r., holding labarum and Victory on
globe, spurning captive
On sol.: (Arc.) 100, 119-21, 128-9, 161-2, 265-
7, 269, 272; (Th. Il) 149-50, 349; (Hon.)
196-7, 198-9, 201, 691-6, 712-14, 722-5,
735-6, 744; (Constantine III) 214-17, 792-3,
796-8, 803-5; (Jovinus) 220, 808; Constantius
III, 225, 815; (John) 227-8, 819; (Val. III)
835; (Avitus) 248, 875
On AE 2: (Arc.) 112, 84-91, 113, 117-18, 129-
30, 137-8, 145-7
On AE 2, but no Victory on globe: (Leo I) 164—
5, 560-1; (Zeno) 174, 604
Emp. standing r., suppressing two captives
On AE 3: (Hon.) 207, 209, 733-4
Emperors, three, standing facing, each holding a
spear, the one in center (Th. II) smaller than
the others
On AE 3: (Arc.) 126, 127, 254—6, 258-60, 263;
(Th. II) 139, 140, 308-12; (Hon.) 213, 772-5
Emperors, two, facing, one in consular costume
OBVERSE AND REVERSE TYPES
and the other (not yet emp.) standing, each
raising mappa in r. hand and cross-scepter
in 1.
On sol.: (Th. I1) 144, 370-3
Emperors, two, in consular costume, seated facing,
each nimbate and raising mappa in r. hand
and cross-scepter in 1.
On sol.: (Th. Il) 144, 374-6, 378; (Val. III) 235,
836-8
Emperors, two, nimbate, standing facing each
other, holding long cross
On sol.: (Anth.) 256, 901-2
Emperors, two, seated facing, each holding globe
On sol.: (Leo I), 163, 533
Emperors, two, seated on high-backed throne,
nimbate, holding between them a globe;
above, head and wings of Victory
On sol.: (Arc.) 104, 105, 113, 114, 61, 70
Emperors, two, as last, but insignia and gestures
unclear and no Victory above
On sol.: (Leo II and Zeno) 172, 600-3; (Basil.
and Marcus) 178, 179, 621
Emperors, two, standing facing, each holding a
spear and jointly a long cross
On AE 2: (Th. II) 140, 148-9, 435
On sol.: (Anth.) 257-8, 909-25; (Nepos) 267,
938
Emperors, two, standing facing, each holding a
spear and shield
On AE 3: (Th. II) 140, 330-1; (Hon.) 213,
787-8
Emperors, two, standing facing, holding between
them a banner w. PAX (or variant), one w. his
r. hand on his breast and the other holding in
his l. a globe and Victory
On sol.: (Anth.) 256-7, 903-8
Empress, bust facing: (Lic. Eud.) 244—5, 870;
(Euph.) 260-1, 934
Empress, bust r.: (Eudoxia) 133-5, 273-94; (Pul.)
152—4, 436-53; (Eudocia) 156, 454-75; (Ver-
ina) 170, 593—8; (Ariadne) 176, 606; (Zenonis)
180, 627; (Plac.) 230-2, 817-18, 824-34;
(Honoria) 242—3, 866-9; (Lic. Eud.) 245-6,
871-3; (Euph.) 260, 933
Empress, bust r., crowned by Manus Dei: (Eudoxia)
133-5, 273-94; (Pul.) 152-3, 436-43; (Eudo-
cia) 156, 454—9; (Verina) 170, 593—4; (Zen-
onis) 180; (Plac.) 230-2, 817, 824-8, 834;
(Honoria) 242-3, 866; (Lic. Eud.) 295—6, 872
Empress seated facing, w. hands clasped on breast
On AE 3: (Eudoxia) 134—5, 291-4
On AE 4: (Eudocia) 156, 475
Empress seated facing, holding a Victory on globe
and a cross-scepter
On sol.: (Lic. Eud.) 244-5, 870
Empress (Verina) standing, holding gl. cr. and
scepter transversely
On nummus: (Leo I) 164, 166, 582-6
Empresses, two, standing, nimbate, each holding
ee
On sol.: (Euph.) 260-1, 934
Figures, three, standing, crowned and nimbate, the
central one (Th. II) joining the hands of the
487
others (Val. III and Lic. Eud.) in marriage
On sol.: (Th. II) 145—6, 395
Figures, three, as last, but the central figure, not
crowned, is Christ and the others are Marcian
and Pulcheria
On sol.: (Marcian) 158
Lion
On nummus: (Leo I) 84, 164, 573-81
Monograms, normally imperial, in wreath, on
nummi (Th. II) 148, 433—4; (Marcian) 159,
494-504, 506-12; (Leo I) 164, 166, 562-70;
(Zenonis) 180, 627; (Zeno) 183, 657-63; (Rici-
mer) 254, 900; (Anth.) 259, 930-2
Palm, in field: (Arc.) 352, 355, 61, 70; held by Vic-
tory, see under Victory
Ravenna standing on prow, wearing mural crown
and holding scepter and cornucopia
On half-siliqua: (Basil.) 178, 618; (Zeno) 185-6,
672-3, 682-3; (Nepos) 254, 942
Roma enthroned, facing, holding a globe w. Vic-
tory and a reversed spear
On sol.: (Attalus) 222—3, 812—3; (Nepos) 267,
941
Roma enthroned, looking |., holding a globe (with-
out Victory) and a reversed spear
On siliqua: (Arc.) 104, 105, 117, 68, 206; (Hon.)
204, 206, 740-1
Roma seated I., on cuirass, holding a globe w. Vic-
tory and a reversed spear
On siliqua: (Arc.) 130—1, 192-201; (Hon.) 204,
205, 716-18;
Roma seated l., as last, but curule seat instead of
cuirass
On siliqua: (Constantine III) 215-17, 794-5,
799-802, 806-7; (Jovinus) 220, 809-11; (At-
talus) 223, 814
Roma standing, looking r., holding trophy and
globe w. Victory
On AE 3: (Arc.) 131, 132, 271; (Hon.) 207-8,
728-30
Roma and Cpolis seated, Roma facing and Cpolis
half |., both helmeted and wearing tunic and
chiton, Roma facing and holding a Victory on
globe and a spear, Cpolis holding a Victory on
globe and a long scepter
On double solidus: 34; (Th. Il) 145, 377; (Leo I)
162
Roma and Cpolis seated, as last, but Cpolis is fac-
ing, looking I|., and they hold between them a
shield w. VOT/XV/MVL/XX
On sol.: (Th. II) 141, 346
Trophy of arms
On trem.: (Th. II) 144, 361-2
Victories, two, facing each other
On AE 4: (Arc.) 102-3, 63
Victory adv., looking |., holding wreath and gl. cr.
On trem.: (Arc.) 107, 110-11, 127, 82-3, 251;
(Th. IL) 141, 319-27; (Marcian) 158, 487-9;
(Leo I) 163, 538-47; (Basil.) 178, 613-15;
(Basil. and Marcus) 179, 625-6; (Zeno and the
Caesar Leo) 181—2, 628; (Zeno) 183, 646-54;
(Hon.) 210, 211, 751-4, 781; (John) 227-8,
820-1; (Val. III) 235, 839-40
488
Victory adv. |. w. wreath and palm
On aureus: (Leo I) 34, 162, 515
On trem.: (Arc.) 114, 115, 128, 129, 268; (Hon.)
200, 202, 715, 727, 737-9
On siliqua: (Constantius III) 225—6, 816 (false)
On half-siliqua: (Val. III) 238, 847-8
On AE 4: (Arc.) 104—5, 116, 117, 67, 202-3;
(Hon.) 207, 209, 731-2; (Carthage) 224; (Maj.)
252, 878, 883
Victory adv. r. w. wreath and trophy
On large AE: (Zeno) 186-7, 689
Victory carrying trophy and dragging captive I.
On AE 4: (Arc.) 114, 116-17, 92-109, 112, 114-
16, 119-28, 131-6, 139-44, 148-54; (Hon.)
198, 208, 698-700; (John) 228, 822-3
Victory seated r., inscribing Chi-Rho on shield
On sol.: (Eudoxia) 133-4, 273-290; (Pul.) 152,
436; (Plac.) 230, 817
On semissis: (Plac.) 230, 231
On siliqua: (Plac.) 231, 832
On AE 2: (Verina) 170, 598
On AE 3: (Eudoxia) 134, 274-89
Victory seated r., inscribing vota numerals on shield
On sol.: 100, 125, 127, 237, 250
On sem.: (Arc.) 107—9, 79; (Th. I1) 143, 144,
148, 356, 396, 429; (Marcian) 158, 485-6;
INDEX 3
(Leo I) 163, 535-7; (Zeno) 183, 644—5; (Hon.)
200, 202, 210, 211, 726, 790; (Val. III) 237,
857
Victory standing |., holding long cross
On sol.: (Th. II) 142-3, 350-5; (Pul.) 152-3,
437-40, 443; (Eudocia) 156, 454—6; (Marcian)
158, 476-84; (Leo I) 162, 163, 167—8, 516-
29, 534, 553-5, 591-2; (Verina) 170, 593-4;
(Leo II and Zeno) 172, 599; (Ariadne) 176;
(Basil.) 178, 607-12, 616; (Basil. and Marcus)
178—9, 619-20, 622-4; (Zeno) 174, 182, 184,
185, 629-43, 664-8, 670, 674-80, 685-7;
(Honorius) 210, 211, 789; (Plac.) 230—1, 824-
8; (Val. IIL) 241, 863-4; (Honoria) 242, 866;
(Euph.) 260, 933; (Nepos) 267-8, 939; 943-6,
948, 951—4; (Romulus) 269, 949
Wreath enclosing vota inscription, see Index 2
under vota inscriptions
Wreath enclosing other inscriptions
On siliquae:
SAL/REI/PVI: (Pul.) 153, 453; (Marcian) 159,
491-3; (Leo I) 163, 550-2; (Zeno) 183, 655
(SRI/REI/RVL)
TOV/VIMV/MTI (for Votis multis): (Zeno) 183,
656
Wreath, held by Victory, see under Victory
Index 4
MINT-MARKS, LETTERS, SIGLA, ETC.
This index covers mint-marks but not accompanying officina numerals, the existence of these,
where present, being indicated by x in italics. CONOB on Eastern gold coins and COMOB on
Western ones are in too general use to justify listing unless they occur out of context (e.g.,
COMOB on a few Eastern solidi) or involve some significant variant (e.g., CORMOB). Mint-
marks can be assumed to be in the exergue on the reverse, or beneath the reverse type if an
exergual line is absent, and letters and other sigla to be in the reverse field, unless otherwise
indicated. The bulk of the entries, in boldface type, refer to the catalogue; page references to
the text, in ordinary type, are included only when they are of an explanatory character.
ALEx (Alexandria), 58, 47-52, 145-9, 235-6,
259-62, 710, 763
ANx (Antioch), 59, 44-6
ANTx, 59, 36-43, 137—44, 182-4, 231-4, 247,
258, 287-8, 302, 310-11, 579, 707-9, 761-2,
774-5
ANTIOB, 174
AQ (Aquileia), 59; in field, 722, 825
AQx, 59, 188-91
AOPS, 59, 68
AR (Arles), 60; in field, 803-5, 875, 884, 948
AVGG(GG) formula, 85-6
bE (for Berina, i.e., Verina), 582-6
C, for Caesar, at end of inscr., 9, 162, 163, 178-9,
532-3, 619
C, for capitalis (at Trier), 69
Christogram(P)
in center field, 919
in |. field, 72, 87-109, 112, 116, 119-28, 143-4,
150-4, 188-91, 515
in r. field, 79, 396, 429, 485-6, 535-7, 644-5,
790
CM, 186
CN (Constantinople), 571-2
COB, 149, 201, 742
COM, 61, 70
COMDOB (the MD ligatured), 66, 909
COMOB, on Eastern solidi, 61, 146-7, 110-1,
161-2, 223, 242, 298, 349, 414-27, 441-2,
691-6, 701, 756, 769-70, 776-80, 785
CON (Constantinople), 61, 306, 328, 348, 392-3,
394(?), 433—4(?), 494-504, 549, 561-3, 573-7,
782
xCON (Arles), 60, 203 (TCON)
CONx, 60, 5-11
CONE, 560, 598
CONOB, on silver coin (miliarense), 163, 259, 548;
on trem., 176
CONOR, 182, 685
CONOS*, 183, 655
CONS, 61, 157—60, 164-5, 435, 475
CONS,., 73, 75
CONS*, 61, 252, 357-8, 388-9, 397-409, 452-3,
473—4, 490-3, 550-2, 656, 783-4, 791
CONSx (Constantinople), 61, 34, 84-91, 218, 238-
41, 274-8, 291-2, 297, 697-700, 755, 766
CORMOB, 66, 917
Cross, in I. field, 38—43, 84-6, 139—42, 291-2; and
Tinr., 43
Cross, in r. field, 293-4
Cross, preceding mint-mark, 14 (+SMNTI)
Cross above type in upper field, 600-3, 621
I:, in Ll. field, 64—5, 74
r:, at end of rev. legend, 687
IIII beneath obv. bust, 698
IX (monogram of *Inoots Xeuotds) in field, 916-
17
KOC, 183
KONOB (Arles), 60, 806
KONT (Arles), 60, 807
KVZ (Cyzicus), 62, 564
LD (Lyon), 62; in field, 792-3, 808
LVGx (Lyon), 62, 202
LVGPS, 62, 201
MD (Milan) in ex., 64, 883; in field, 63, 70, 265-8,
589-91, 674-80, 682-3, 712-15, 854, 880-1,
889-94, 904-7, 909-14, 921-2 (letters liga-
tured), 943—5, 951-4
MDPS, 63, 71, 192—4, 716-21
NIC (Nicomedia), 64, 506-7, 578
489
490
OF(F) x in field, 51—2, 60, 66, 271, 728-30
Pellet, in center field, beneath monogram of RMA,
925
Pellet, in |. field, 148-9
in r. field, 29-30
after mint-mark, 13 (KSMNA-), 59-60 (TESTI),
73, 75 (CONS:)
after I at end of rev. legend, 687
before mint-mark, 57—8 (-TESIT), 129-30
(‘SMHB)
before and after COMOB, 616, 670, 954
before and after XL, 689
Pellets (two) beneath RV in field, 938; after rev.
inscr., 939, 954
PSRV, 223, 814
PST, 225
R, at end of rev. legend, 685-6
RA, in field, 236, 254
RM (Rome), in field: 66, 269, 587, 723-7, 812,
813; (w. star), 823, 826, 849-50, 856, 858-9,
874, 895, 908, 915, 934
RM, in ex., 66, 731—2, 852-3, 930-1
xRM, 66, 822
RMA (monogramatically), in field, 258, 925
RMPS (Rome), 66, 270, 832
ROMOB, 115
RV (Ravenna), in ex., 65, 833, 878—9; in field: 65,
272, 349, 513, 618, 672—3, 735-9, 742-3, 815,
817, 819-21, 827-8, 835, 841—4, 857, 866,
877, 887-8, 901-3, 935-6, 938 (w. 2 pellets
beneath), 942
RVPS, 65, 740-1, 846 (P reversed), 941
SC (revival of Senatus Consultu), 29, 689
xSIS (Siscia), 67, 66—7
SM (Sacra Moneta), in field, 61, 65, 194-5, 196-7,
209, 161-2, 691-6, 744
SMAQsx (Aquileia), 59, 69
SMAR (Arles), 60, 805
SMB, SMBA (Barcelona), 60
SMHx (Heraclea), 62, 28-35, 129-36, 176-8
SMKx (Cyzicus), 62, 16-27, 117-28, 168-75, 226-
30, 245-6, 254-7, 282-6, 300-1, 308-9, 334-
7, 703-5, 759-60, 768, 772-3, 865
SMLD, 62, 794-5
SMLDV (Lyon), 63, 809
INDEX 4
SMN, 816 (false)
SMNx (Nicomedia), 64, 12-15, 113-16, 166-7,
224-5, 243-4, 279-81, 293, 299, 332-3, 706,
757-8
SMROM (Rome), 66, 271, 728-30
Star
after rev. inscr., 933, 943-5
after mint-mark, 6—8 (CONT), 34 (SMHB), 936
(COMOB), 444-51, 460-72, 595-7, 606
(CONOB), 655 (CONOS)); see also CONS
before mint-mark, 12-13 (*SMN), 36—43
(*ANT)
in obv. field behind bust, 254—6, 258-60, 263,
308-12, 330-1, 339—40, 772-5, 787-8
Star, in center field, 918
Star, in |. field, 129-30, 290, 304-7, 313-18, 329,
346-7, 348, 356, 359-60, 364-9, 377, 391,
410-29, 436, 441-2, 459, 475, 485-6, 505,
531, 535-7, 548-9, 653-4, 679-80 (w. MD),
769-71, 776-80, 782, 785—6, 790, 834
Star, in r. field, 319-27, 379-87, 390, 430-2, 443,
457-8, 476-84, 487-9, 515-29, 532, 534,
538-47, 553-4, 593-4, 599, 607-16, 619-20,
622-6, 628-43, 646-52, 664-5, 670, 685-7,
690, 758, 813, 839-40, 860-4, 946
Star, in upper field, 354-5, 370-6, 378, 438-40,
454-6, 533, 600-3, 621, 824-8, 836-8
Stars (two), in field, 361-2, 555, 559, 666-8
T, in lL. field, 9, 47, 823 (off. initial); in r. field, 14,
4
3
T, in l. field, 32-3
T (Thessalonica), following rev. legend and pre-
ceding off. numeral, 68, 184, 664—5
TCON, see xCON
TES (for Thessalonica), 68, 62, 64—5, 74
TESx, 68, 57—60, 63, 330-1
TESOB, 68, 329, 364-9, 390, 505, 771 (recut over
COMOB), 786
THSOB, 68, 553-9, 669; on AR, 184
TR (Trier), 69, 200
TRMS, 69, 799-802, 810-11
TROBS, 69, 796-8
TRPS, 69, 195-9
Wreath, in |. field, 57-8
XL, between 2 pellets in ex., 689
Index 5
GENERAL INDEX
This index is necessarily selective; no useful object would be served by including every single
mention of emperors and mints. Page references are in numerical order, main entries being
distinguished by italic type. Catalogue references are in boldface type.
Abritus (Razgrad, Bulgaria), coin hoard, 17, 278
Accessory symbols, 87—8; see also Index 4
Adelson, H. L. and G. L. Kustas, on bronze coin-
age, 41, 44-7, 81, 164, 183
Adrianople, battle of, 5, 58—9, 66, 284
Adventus, imperial coin type, 80, 157
AE 1-4, coins, 11, 28, 40
AE 2, abolition of, 41, 123—4; coins of Arcadius,
97~—9, 103—4, 111—12, 120, 6—9, 12-18, 28-34,
36-43, 47, 57-60; of Honorius, 197, 212-13,
697, 706-8, 710; of Theodosius II, 148-9,
435; (2) of Valentinian III, 241; of Leo I, 47,
57, 149, 164-5, 560-1; of Verina, 47, 57, 76,
149, 164-5, 170, 598; of Zeno, 47, 57, 109,
165, 174, 183, 604
Aegidius, 253, 254
Aelia, as title, 7, 77
Aetius, 71, 150, 151, 227, 233—4, 239, 248, 250,
254
Agnellus, 65
Aguntum (Austria), site finds, 25
Akakia, 75
Alaric, Visigothic king, 5, 64, 82, 192, 193, 198,
209, 219, 220, 223, 229
Alexandria (Egypt), 11, 13, 49, 58; coins of Arca-
dius, 98, 112, 113, 120, 121, 124, 126, 47-52,
145-9, 235-6, 259-62; of Eudoxia, 294; of
Theodosius II, 140, 142, 148, 312, 338; of
Marcian, 159; of Honorius, 197, 213, 710, 763
Algeria, coin hoards in, see Cherchel, Tipasa
Almsgiving, 33
Altar of Victory, see Rome, Senate
Alypia, daughter of Anthemius, 255, 261
Amécourt, G. Ponton d’, collector, 290
Ammianus Marcellinus, 74
Anastasius I, emperor, 8, 9, 31; coinage reform of,
32,41, 187
Angel, evolved from Victory, 82
Anicia Juliana, daughter of Olybrius, 262
Anicii, 262
Anna Comnena, 245
Anthemius, emperor, 157, 161, 166-7, 255-9,
901-32
49]
Anthemius, praetorian prefect, 94, 136
Antioch (Syria), 13, 49, 58-9, 106, 174; site finds,
25; coins of Arcadius, 98, 99, 101, 111, 112,
113, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 127, 36-46,
137-44, 179-84, 231—4, 247, 258; of Eudoxia,
287-8; of Theodosius II, 140, 142, 144, 148,
302, 310-11; of Marcian, 159; of Leo I, 166,
579; of Zeno, 174; of Leontius, 190; of Honor-
ius, 197, 213, 707-9, 761-2, 774-5
Antoninianus, 10
Apostolo Zeno, see Zeno, Apostolo
Aquileia (Italy), 13, 19, 49, 59, 129, 132, 193, 227,
233, 234, 237; coins of Arcadius, 102, 104,
105, 106, 108, 110, 112-13, 114-17, 123,
128-32, 198, 68-9, 188-91; of Theodosius II,
150; of Honorius, 194—5, 198, 207, 208, 209,
722; of Galla Placidia, 230, 231, 825; coin
hoard from, 16, 278
Arbogast, 110, 118
Arcadia, daughter of Arcadius, 94, 152
Arcadius, emperor, 4, 8, 10, 12, 18, 19, 93-132,
133, 136, 1389-41, 192-3, 196-7, 199, 201,
207-9, 215, 1-272
Arcapius, misspelling of Arcadius’ name, 130
Arcay (France), coin hoard, 16, 236, 278-9
Arcy-Sainte-Restitue (France), coin hoard, 20, 150,
238-9
Ardaburius, 227
Argentei minutt, 249
Argenteus, 10
Ariadne, empress, wife of Zeno, 4, 8, 161, 171,
176, 181, 606
Arles (Arelatum), 13, 14, 59-60, 189, 193-4, 214,
250, 253; coins of Arcadius, 116-17, 122, 128,
129, 203; of Honorius, 193—4, 197—8, 199; of
Constantine III, 193—4, 214-17, 803-7; of
Constans (II), 218; of Jovinus, 193—4, 220; of
Avitus, 248-9; 875; of Majorian, 251, 884-5;
of Julius Nepos, 266, 268, 948; of Romulus
Augustulus, 269
Armatus, 177, 181-2
As (coin), 10, 39
Aspar, 9, 14, 157, 161, 227
492
Aspirate, sometimes omitted from Honorius, 195-—
6, 218
Athaulf, Visigothic king, 220, 222, 229
Athens (Greece), site finds, 25
Attalus, see Priscus Attalus
Attila, 59, 63, 79, 136, 157, 233, 242, 269, 290
Augusta, title, 6-8, 261; not reckoned in AVGG
formula, 7
Augustus, emperor, 147
Aurelian, emperor, 10
Aureus, of Principate, 10; of the Dominate (Fest-
aureus), see under Multiples (medallions), gold
Austria, coin hoards from, 21; see also Aguntum,
Carnuntum
Auvergne, 268
Avitus, emperor, 4, 14, 160, 248—9, 875-6; por-
trait of, 74
Baduila, Ostrogothic king, 57—8
Balkans, coin hoards in, 15
“Barbarous radiates,” 71
Barcelona (Spain), 6, 13, 49, 57, 60, 229; coins of
Maximus, 219; coins fd. at, 219
Barrandon, J.-N., on gold fineness, 30-1
Barton-upon-Humber, see Deepdale
Basileus, 147
Basiliscus, emperor, 4, 6, 8, 14, 170, 177-80, 266,
267, 269, 607-26
Basiliscus (? = Leo, son of Armatus), 177, 181—2
Basilissa, 246
Bauto, 133
Bearded effigies, 74, 138, 145, 227, 248
Becker, Carl Wilhelm, 37, 242, 260, 297, 298
Beilen (Netherlands), coin hoard, 16, 279
Belgium, coin hoards in, see Furfooz, Helchteren,
Hemptinne, Koninksem, Lierre, Tongeren,
Tournai, Vedrin
Berlin, Staatliche Museen, 107, 145, 251, 252
Bermondsey (Britain), coin hoard, 22, 32
Bina (Czechoslovakia), coin hoard, 16, 17, 143,
148, 279-80
Birmingham, Barber Institute, 175
Béckingen (Germany), coin hoard, 19-20
Bologna, supposed mint at, 56, 185
Boniface, count, 61, 224
“Boulogne” (France), coin hoard, 22, 41
Brandenburg (Germany), coin hoard, 52
Braone (Italy), coin hoard, 17, 280
Brean Down (Britain), site finds from, 71
Britain, coin hoards in, 15, 18-19, 21-2, 26, 37; see
also Bermondsey, Brean Down, Bromham,
Canterbury, Colerne, Corbridge, Deepdale
(Barton-upon-Humber), East Harptree,
Edington, Eye, Fleetwood, Freckenham,
Grovely Wood, Icklingham, Kempston, North
Mendips, Osbournby, Otterbourne, Richbor-
ough, Shapwick, Somerset, South Ferriby,
Sproxton, Terling, Traprain Law, Tuddenham,
Whorlton
Bromham (Britain), coin hoard, 18
Bronze coinage, 11, 13, 14, 27-8, 31-2, 39-47
Budapest, Hungarian National Museum, 145
Bulgaria, coin hoards, see Abritus, Krivina (Jatrus)
INDEX 5
Burgundians, 193, 220, 233, 252
Butera (Sicily), coin hoard, 17, 280
C, see Index 4
Caesars, coins of, 8—9
Caiffa (Syria), coin hoard, 21
Camp gate, coin type, see Index 3
Candidus, historian, 14
Cannitello (Italy), coin hoard, 17, 280-1
Canterbury (Britain), coin hoard, 18
Caracalla, emperor, 10
Carat, see siliqua (carat)
Carausius, emperor, 187
Carmen de Ponderibus, 29
Carnuntum (Austria), site finds, 25
Cartagine coins, 23, 224
Carthage (Africa), 26, 60—1, 201, 233; anonymous
AE of, 224; site finds and hoards, 26, 224,
228, 243
Cassiodorus, 49—50, 75, 253, 256-7
Cavino, Giovanni da, 296
Cedrenus, Byzantine historian, 155
Centenionalis, 28, 40, 123
Certosa, see Pavia, Certosa di
Chalcedon, Council of, 152, 156
Chapipi (Spain), coin hoard, 16, 281
Charvet, Jules, collector, 216
Chécy (France), coin hoard, 16, 149, 201, 215, 28/
Chelles, coin fd. at, 249
Cherchel (Algeria), coin hoard, 16, 281-2
Cherris, fortress, 170
Cherson, possible mint, 14, 47, 56-7, 149, 174
Chersonese, 164
Childeric, Frankish king, 30, 290
Chi-Rho, as coin type, 83; see also Index 3
Christ, figure of, in coin type, 158
Christian elements in coin design, 11, 12-13, 78
Chronicon Paschale, 137, 138, 142-3
Chrysostom, St. John, 133, 134
Cigoi, Luigi, forgeries of, 178, 180, 190, 218, 219,
244, 297-8
Cios (KOC), supposed mint, 72, 183
Claudian, poet, 82, 147, 194, 199, 203
Clipping, 18, 37—9, 205
CM, 186
Codex Theodosianus, 27, 28, 30, 49, 123-4, 193
Coin hoards, 15—26, 278—95; British, 204; Gallic,
208; Scandinavian, 225
Coins, mounted, as jewelry, 35, 145; see also Velp
Coleraine (Ireland), coin hoard, 20, 37
Colerne (Britain), coin hoard, 37
Collegiality, 6, 74, 78, 127, 234
Cologne (Germany), coin hoard, 22
COM, 61, 70
Combertault (France), coin hoard, 15, 17, 248, 282
Comes auri, 53, 54—5
Comes obrizi, 31
Comes sacrarum largitionum, 49-50
Comiso (Sicily), coin hoard, 16, 17, 29, 63, 143,
148, 198, 235, 237, 242, 282-3
COMOB, see Index 4
Constans I, emperor, 4
Constans (II), usurper, 4, 192, 214, 218, 226
GENERAL INDEX
Constantine I the Great, 7, 10, 11, 30, 59
Constantine III, 4, 12, 13, 18, 19, 37, 192, 193-4,
195, 206, 214-17, 226, 792—807
Constantinople, mint, 49, 53, 6/
Constantinople, statues in, 112, 115, 134
Constantinopolis, as coin type, 11, 13, 82-4, 144
Constantius II, emperor, 3, 74, 79
Constantius III, emperor, 4, 5, 8, 192, 193, 222,
225-6, 229, 242, 815-16; forgery of, 297
Consular costume, 75
Consulships, imperial, 87-9, 137, 146-7, 192; list
of, 273-5
Copper, quality of, 30-1
Corbridge (England), coin hoard, 16, 283
Corinth (Greece), coin hoard, 24; site finds, 25, 47
Count of the Sacred Largesses, 49-50
Counterfeits, 69-72
Crimea, 170
Crimean War, 164, 170
Cross, as coin type, 84, 85
Cross-and-Victory type, origin of, 142-3
Crown, suspended, 76, 150, 151, 152, 156
Cugnot, collector, 218
Cynegius, 101
Cyzicus (Asia Minor), 13, 49, 51, 62; coins of Arca-
dius, 98, 99, 111, 112, 113, 120, 121, 124, 125,
126, 127, 16-27, (2)54, 117-28, 168-75, 226-
30, 245-6, 254-7; of Eudoxia, 282-6; of
Theodosius II, 140, 144, 300-1, 308-9, 334-
7, (?) 394; of Marcian, 159; of Leo I, 166, 564;
of Honorius, 197, 213, 703—5, 759-60, 768,
772-3; of Valentinian III, 239, 241, 865
Czechoslovakia, coin hoards in, 15
Dalmatia, 184, 239, 263, 266, 268; hoard from, 24,
47, 159, 224, 234
Danubian region, 25
Dardanius, metrological writer, 27
Decargyrus nummus, 28, 123
Decentius, emperor, 216
De Ceremoniis, 61, 74
Deepdale (Barton-upon-Humber) (Britain), coin
hoard, 19, 37
Delmaire, R., on bronze coinage, 41 ff
Denarius, 10, 19, 28, 187
Diadem, forms of, 74, 75, 76
Dies, recutting of, 52
Die-axes, 73
Dioceses and mints, 49
Diocletian, emperor, coins of, 187; monetary re-
forms of, 10—11, 48—9; provincial reorganiza-
tion of, 48-9, 59, 62, 68
Dominus noster formula, 77
Dortmund (Germany), coin hoard, 16, 58, 70, 199,
201, 215, 283-4
Dressel, H., collection, 252
Dupondius, 39
Eagle, as coin type, 84, 185—6, 267, 268
East Harptree (Britain), coin hoard, 18
Edington (Britain), coin hoard, 37, 717, 721
Egypt, coin hoards from, 21, 23-4, 41, 43—4, 58, 72
El-Djem (Tunisia), coin hoard, 23, 46, 239
493
El-Kab (Egypt), coin hoard, 21
Emona (Yugoslavia), coin hoard, 29
Emperors, representations of, 11, 12, 49-50, 73-6,
78—80
Empresses, coins in names of, 6—8; representations
of, 73, 75—6; crowns of, 244—5
Ephesus (Turkey), site finds, 25
Epigraphy, coin, 88—9
Epiphanius of Salamis, metrological writer, 27, 29
Ersekujvar (Hungary), coin hoard, 180
Eudocia, empress, wife of Theodosius II, 4, 8, 13,
33, 75, 133, 136, 143, 146, 155-6, 170, 244,
454-75
Eudocia, daughter of Valentinian III, 244, 245,
253, 262
Eudocia, daughter of Petronius Maximus, 247
Eudoxia, empress, wife of Arcadius, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
13, 75, 94, 133-5, 152, 155, 156, 192, 244,
245, 273-94
Eudoxia, Licinia, see Licinia Eudoxia
Eugenius, emperor, 3, 4, 11, 74, 96, 97, 118, 121,
122, 123, 192, 197, 205, 206, 216
Euphemia, empress, 4, 7, 8, 157, 255, 260-1,
933-4
Euric, Visigothic king, 189, 268
Eutropius, chamberlain, 94, 133
Evagrius, historian, 155, 179
Exagia, 30, 199
Eye (Britain), coin hoard, 16
Fano (Italy), coin hoard, 16, 17, 284-5
Fausta, empress, 7, 8
Fel. Temp. Reparatio imitations, 71
Fest-aureus, see under Multiples (medallions), gold
Fibula, 75
Flaccilla, empress, 4, 6, 7, 34, 94, 102, 110, 152,
192
Flavian emperors, 187
Flavius, as title, 7
Fleetwood (Britain), coin hoard, 38
Fleury-sur-Orne (France), coin fd. at, 15, 20
Follis, 9, 15, 186; see also Zeno, large AE of
Forgeries, 127, 259, 296-8, 932
Foucault, Joseph, collector, 225, 231
France, coin hoards in, 15, 20, 21, see also Argay,
Arcy-Sainte-Restitue, “Boulogne,” Chécy,
Combertault, Fleury-sur-Orne, Genainville, Iz-
enave, Lonray, Mailly-le-Camp, Poitou
Franks, 150, 233
Frankish pseudo-imperial AR, 71
Freckenham (Britain), coin hoard, 19, 37
Frigidus, river, battle on, 118, 198
Furfooz (Belgium), coin hoard, 16, 284
Gainas, 94, 133
Gaiseric, Vandal king, 233, 244, 250, 253, 262
Galla, empress, wife of Theodosius I, 94, 110, 229
Galla Placidia, empress, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 146, 192,
193, 222, 224, 227, 229-32, 233-5, 242, 817—
18, 824-34; forgeries of, 280, 296
Gallic mints, see Arles, Lyon, Trier
Genainville (France), coin hoard, 20
Geneva, Musée d'art et d’histoire, 30
494
“Geneva forgeries,” 298
Germanic imitations, 226, 237, 252, 254
Germanic peoples, 5, 14, 204; see also Burgundians,
Franks, Ostrogoths, Suevi, Visigoths
Germany, coin hoards in, 15, 20, 21; see also Bock-
ingen, Brandenburg, Dortmund, Gross Bod-
ungen, Heilbronn, Kastel-Wiesbaden, Mainz,
Menzelen, Wiirselen, Xanten
Gerontius, 214, 218, 219
Gildo, rebel in Africa, 61, 193, 201, 224
Glasgow, Hunterian collection, 158
Globus cruciger, origins and early use, 13, 75, 82,
138, 143
Glycerius, emperor, 4, 15, 79, 263—5, 935-7
Gold, coinage, 32-5; fineness of, 30-1; minting of,
11, 50-1, 53
Gold-silver ratios, 27—8
Goubastoff, G., collector, 232
Graffiti on coins, 35
Gratian, emperor, 3, 4, 94, 95, 96, 99, 101, 102,
103, 105
Gratian, usurper in Britain, 4, 6, 214
Grave-finds, 19-20
Gravisca (Italy), coin hoard, 16, 284
Greek, sometimes used in monograms, 80
Greuthungi, 111-12
Gross Bodungen (Germany), coin hoard, 16, 20,
285
Grovely Wood (Britain), coin hoard, 18
Gundahar, Burgundian king, 270
Gundobald, Burgundian king, 252, 263
Haarlemmermeer (Netherlands), coin hoard, 22
Hacksilber, 17, 20, 285
Hague, The, Royal Dutch collection formerly at,
202, 230
Half-siliqua, see Siliqua, half-
Hapert (Netherlands), coin hoard, 22
Hawara (Egypt), coin hoards, 23, 24
Haworth, Jesse, 24
Hedervar, see Wiczay collection
Heilbronn (Germany), coins fd. at, 71
Helchteren (Belgium), coin hoard, 22, 41, 72
Hemptinne (Belgium), coin hoard, 21, 41
Hendy, M. F., on minting organization, 48-9; on
SM coins, 119
Henoticon, 175, 181
Heraclea (Thracica), 13, 49, 62; coins of Arcadius,
98, 99, 101, 111, 112, 113, 120, 121, 124, 125,
126, 127, 28-35, (?)55, 129-36, 176-8; of
Theodosius II, 140, 142, 144; of Marcian, 159;
of Leo I, 166; of Honorius, 197, 213, 702
Heraclian, count of Africa, 193, 201, 224
Heraclius, emperor, 8, 82
Hermitage Museum, see Leningrad
Histria (Romania), site finds, 25
Hoards, see Coin hoards
Holzer, H., collection, 35
Honoria, Justa Grata, empress, 4, 7, 8, 26, 193,
229, 234, 242-3, 866-9
Honorius, emperor, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18, 76, 79,
96, 97, 139, 141-3, 149-50, 192-213, 214,
691-791; misspellings of his name, 196
Horvat Rimmon (Israel), coin hoards, 17, 285
INDEX 5
Hostentorp (Denmark), coin hoard, 20
Huneric, Vandal king, 262 |
Hungary, coin hoards in, see Ersekujvar, Szikancs,
Szilagy-Somly6
Huns, 5, 12, 136, 138, 157, 227, 228, 233
Icklingham (Britain), coin hoard, 37
Illus, Isaurian, 170, 181, 190
Illyricum, 3, 4, 95, 105, 193, 212, 250
Imitations, local, 72
Imperial titulature, 77
Inflation, third century, 10
Ingots, 50; monetary use of, 10, 14, 18, 31, 35, 50
Ireland, coin hoards from, 20, 37
Irene, empress, 8
Isauria, 170, 177, 190
Isaurians, 5, 161, 181
Isidore of Seville, 29
Israel, coin hoards in, see Horvat Rimmon
Italy, coin hoards in, 15, 19; see also Aquileia,
Braone, Butera, Cannitello, (Certosa di) Pavia,
Comiso, Fano, Gravisca, Massafra, Minturno,
Monte Rosa, Nonantola, Ordona, Ostia,
Parma, Perugia, Reggio Emilia, Rome (coin
hoards), San Genesio, San Lazzaro, “South
Italy,” Syracuse
Izenave (France), coin hoard, 17, 285
Izmit (Turkey), coin hoard, 17, 52, 285
Izvoarele (Romania), site finds, 25, 72
Jatrus, see Krivina
Jerez de la Frontera (Spain), coin hoard, 16, 286
Jerusalem, 142, 155-6
John, emperor, 4, 5, 12, 63, 149-50, 151, 227-8,
233, 235, 819-23
John Chrysostom, St., 133, 134
John Lydus, 14, 27, 181
Jordanes, historian, 353
Jovian, emperor, 3, 31
Jovinus, usurper in Gaul, 4, 12, 13, 192, 193, 194,
206, 216, 220, 808-11
Julian, emperor, 3, 30, 31, 74
Julian, son of Constantine III, 214
Julius Nepos, see Nepos, Julius
Justa Grata Honoria, see Honoria
Justin II, emperor, 8, 74
Justina, wife of Valentinian I, 95, 110
Justinian I, emperor, 8; statue of, 75
Karanis (Egypt), coin hoard, 23, 58
Kastel-Wiesbaden (Germany), coin hoard, 19
Kempston (Britain), coin hoard, 18
Kent, J. P. C., on gold minting, 48; on Arles/Con-
stantinople, 60; on SM coins, 119; on IMP
XXXXII coins, 147; on the Caesar Leo, 182
King, C. E., on clipped siliquae, 37-9; on minting
organization, 50
Klein-Tromp, see Trabki Mate
Kleinhiiningen (Switzerland), grave finds, 20, 150-
1, 238-9, 252
Koninksem (Belgium), coin hoard, 22
Kostolac (Viminacium, Yugoslavia), coin hoard,
22-3
GENERAL INDEX
Krivina (Jatrus, Bulgaria), coin hoard, 16, 286
Kustas, G. L., see Adelson, H. L.
Laatzen (Germany), coin hoard, 290
Lallemand, J., on the bronze coinage, 41 ff; see also
Vedrin
Lead coins or tokens, 25, 69, 72
Legends, broken and unbroken, 77-8, 86-7, 99
Leiden, Royal Dutch Collection, formerly at The
Hague, 202, 230
Lejeune, E., collection, 228, 258
Leningrad, Hermitage Museum, 107, 109, 162,
170, 206, 223, 268
Leo I, pope, 234
Leo I, emperor, 5, 7, 8, 9, 76, 161-9, 172, 244,
246, 250, 251, 252, 253, 255, 262, 265, 515—
92
Leo II, emperor, 4, 161, 162-3, 164, 171, 172-3,
181-2, 186, 264-5, 266, 533-4, 599-603
Leo, nobilissmus Caesar, 6, 9, 172, 181—2, 628
Leontia, daughter of Leo I, 161, 181, 255
Leontius, pretender, 4, 5, 59, 190
Lettering, 88-9
Libius Severus, see Severus III
Libya, see Sidi-bou-Said
Licinia Eudoxia, empress, 4, 7, 8, 13, 75, 76, 133,
145-6, 231, 234, 244-6, 870-3; lead seal of,
244
Lierre (Belgium), coin hoard, 22, 32, 41
Lion, as coin type, see Index 3; under foot of Hon-
orius, 201, 742; symbolism of, 201
Lipari, coin hoard, 249
London (British Museum), coins at, 24, 129, 133,
145, 201, 202, 208, 216, 235, 242, 245, 247,
248, 251, 254
Lonray (France), coin hoard, 17, 286
Loros, 75
Lugdunum, see Lyon
Lydus, see John Lydus
Lyon (Lugdunum), 13, 49, 62-3, 193, 250; coins of
Arcadius, 102, 116-17, 122, 123, 131, 201-2;
of Honorius, 193—4, 195, 197—8, 207, 208; of
Constantine III, 194, 214-17, 226, 792-5; of
Jovinus, 194, 220, 808-9; of Constantius III,
226 (imitations); die-axes at, 73; Museum,
216
M, confused with N, 55-6, 89, 158, 257
Maclsaac, J. D., on bronze coinage, 44
Magnentius, emperor, 59, 60, 216
Magnus Maximus, emperor, 3, 4, 19, 34, 74, 94,
95, 101, 102-133 (passim)
Mailly-le-Camp (France), coin hoard, 20
Maine, duc de, collection, 217
Mainz (Germany), 19; coin hoard, 16, 286
Maiorina, 28, 40, 44
Majorian, emperor, 4, 14, 244, 247, 250-2, 285,
877-86
Malalas, John, historian, 155
Malchus, historian, 263
Manus Dei w. crown, 76, 152, 156, 236, 238-9
Mappa, 75
Marcellinus, governor of Dalmatia, 263, 266
495
Marcellinus comes, historian, 137, 138, 142, 146,
155, 194
Marcian, emperor, 4, 5, 8, 157—60, 234, 241, 244-
6, 248, 250, 260, 476-514
Marcian, son of Anthemius, 181, 255
Marcus, co-emperor, son of Basiliscus, 4, 6, 9, 177,
178-80, 619-26
Marcus, usurper in Britain, 4, 6, 192, 214
Maria, wife of Honorius, 6, 7, 192
Marina, sister of Theodosius II, 6, 94, 152
Mark the Deacon, 147
Marriage solidi, 79, 85, 145—6, 158, 395
Martina, empress, 8
Massafra (Italy), coin hoard, 25
Mauriac field, battle, 233
Maximus, usurper in Spain, 4, 6, 13, 23, 49, 57, 60,
214, 219
Maximus, see Magnus Maximus, Petronius Maxi-
mus
Mazzini, G., collection, 252, 253
Medallions, see Multiples
Mediolanum, see Milan
Menzelen (Germany), coin hoard, 16, 199, 201,
286-7
Meydum (Egypt), coin hoard, 44
Midlum (Netherlands), hoard, 17, 52, 287
Milan (Mediolanum), 13, 18, 48, 49, 51, 58, 63-4;
coins of Arcadius, 102—6, 108—9, 112-15,
122-3, 127-30, 70-1, 192—4, 265-8; of Theo-
dosius II, 149—50; of Marcian, 159-60; 514;
of Leo I, 166—8, 589-91; of Basiliscus, 177,
178, 616-17; of Zeno, 185—6, 188, 674-84; of
Honorius 192-207, 712-21; of John, 227, 228;
of Valentinian III, 234, 237, 854—5; of Avitus,
248-9, 876; of Majorian, 250-2, 880-3; of
Severus III, 253-4, 889-94; of Anthemius,
256-8, 904-7, 909-14, 921-2, 917; of Glycer-
ius, 264, 937; of Julius Nepos, 266-8, 943-5,
951-5; of Romulus Augustulus, 269, 949-50;
die-axes at, 73; Brera collection, 244
Miliarenses, origins and weight, 10, 12, 27-8, 35-
6; in hoards, 18, 19; of Arcadius, 111, 114,
115, 122, 123, 129-30, 134, 163, 270; of Eu-
doxia, 134; of Theodosius II, 140-1, 306, 348;
of Marcian, 158—9; of Leo I, 163, 165, 548-9;
of Zeno, 184, 669; of Honorius, 203, 205, 210,
212, 782
Military types, 79-80
Minimi, minimissimi, 71
Minting, organization of, 48—53; rights of, 6-9
Mint-marks, 11, 53-6
Mints, 56—69
Minturno (Italy), coin hoard, 23, 46, 239
Molenand (Netherlands), coin fd. at, 268
Moneta publica, 48, 50, 252
Monetary system, 27—47
Monograms, 14, 79, 80-1; of Theodosius II, 148,
433—4; of Marcian, 159, 494—507; of Leo I,
164, 166, 562—70; of Basiliscus, 178; of Basilis-
cus and Marcus, 179; of Zenonis, 180, 627; of
Zeno, 183, 657-63; of Leontius, 190; of Rici-
mer, 254, 900; of Anthemius, 259, 930-1
Montagu, H., collection, 201, 237, 239, 245, 249
Monte Rosa (Italy), coin hoard, 25
496
Moustier, collection, 249
Multiples (medallions), gold, 11, 12, 30, 34-5, 80,
240; 36-solidus piece, 76; 12-solidus piece, 34,
65, 253 (Sev. III); 6-solidus piece, 75, 106, 107
(Arc.); 4%-solidus piece, 106, 107 (Arc.), 145
(Th. II); 3-solidus piece, 107 (Arc.); double so-
lidus, 145, 377 (Th. II), 162 (Leo I); sesquisoli-
dus, 157 (Marcian), 148, 200, 202—3 (Hon.),
230, 305 (Plac.); aureus or Fest-aureus, (1/60th
lb.), 107, 128 (Arc.), 162, 515 (Leo I)
Multiples (medallions), silver, 11, 19, 35-6;
quarter-pound piece, 36, 65, 222-3 (Attalus);
6-siliqua piece, 36 (Val. I and others), 107,
109, 129 (Arc.), 203, 204—5 (Hon.); 162 (Leo
I); see also Miliarenses
Muntzen (Mundiacum), 220
N, confused with M, 55-6, 89, 158, 257
Narbonne, possible mint at, 57, 223
Nepos, Julius, emperor, 4, 5—6, 161, 172, 175, 178,
184—5, 186, 187, 261, 263, 266-8, 269, 938-—
48, 951-5; forgery of, 297-8
Netherlands, coin hoards in, see Beilen, Haarlem-
mermeer, Hapert, Midlum, Velp
New York, Museum of the American Numismatic
Society, 35
NF (nobilissima femina), 6
Nicomedia (Asia Minor), 13, 49, 64; coins of Arca-
dius, 98, 99 101, 111, 112, 113, 120, 121, 124,
125, 126, 127, 12-15, 113-16, 166-7, 224-5,
243—4, 253; of Eudoxia, 279-81, 293; of
Theodosius II, 140, 142, 144, 148, 299, 332—
3; of Marcian, 159, 506-7; of Leo I, 166, 578;
of Zeno, 175; of Honorius, 197, 213, 706; see
also Izmit
Nimbus, 75, 79
Nobilissima femina, 6
Nobilissimus, as title, 147
Nonantola (Italy), coin hoard, 16, 287
North Mendips (Britain), coin hoard, 18
Notitia Dignitatum, 31, 48, 49, 51, 61, 67, 194
Numerals, 90
Nummi, 13-14, 23—5, 44—6, 252; also called min-
imi, 47; of Theodosius II, 140, 148, 433—4; of
Marcian, 157, 159, 494-504, 506-12; of Leo I,
164, 165—6, 562—86; of Basiliscus, 178; of
Basiliscus and Marcus, 179; of Zenonis, 180,
627; of Zeno, 174-5, 183, 657-63; of Leon-
tius, 190; of Valentinian III, 239, 852-3; of
Severus III, 254, 900; of Anthemius, 259,
930-1; of Euphemia, 260; attributed to Leo
II, 172-3; to Avitus, 249
OB, meaning and use of, 31, 50, 53-4
Obryzum, 50
Obverse inscriptions, 73, 77-8; types, 73-6
Odovacar, king in Italy, 5, 15, 57, 65, 184-5, 187,
266, 268
Officina, 51-2
Officina numerals, 52-3
Officinatores, 51-2
Olybrius, emperor, 4, 8, 254, 255, 262
Oman, C., collection, 250
One-and-a-half scruple piece, 10, 33, 107
INDEX 5
Ordona (Italy), coin hoard, 25, 47
Orestes, magister militum, 5, 266, 269
Orichalcum, 10
Osbournby (Britain), coin hoard, 19
Ostia, mint, 51, 60; coin hoard, 22
Ostrogoths, 14, 57-8, 65, 111-12, 133, 186, 190
Otterbourne (Britain), coin hoard, 18, 19
Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, 190
Paduans, 306
Paganism, in the late Empire, 78, 82
Palladius, son of Petronius Maximus, 247
Paludamentum, 75
Papirios, Isaurian fortress, 190
Paris (Bibliothéque Nationale), 30, 106, 160, 163,
190, 202, 209, 218, 221, 225, 230, 245, 249
Parma (Italy), coin hoard, 288
Patricius, caesar, 9, 161, 162—3, 179, 532
Patricius, lover of Verina, 177
Pavia (Ticinum), 269; supposed mint, 57—8, 185
Pavia, Certosa di (Italy), coin hoard, 161, 201, 28/
PAX (or PAS, BAS), on shield, see Index 2
Pecunia maiorina, see Maiorina
Peloponnese (Greece), hoard from, 45
Perpetuus formula, 77, 161
Perugia (Italy), coin hoard, 25
Petronius Maximus, emperor, 4, 234, 244, 247,
248, 874; coins wrongly attributed to, 219
Pius felix formula, 77
Placidia, empress, see Galla Placidia
Placidia, daughter of Valentinian III, 262
Plated coins, 70
Poitou (France), coin hoard, 16, 288
Poland, coin hoards in, 15; see also Radostowo,
Trabki Mate
Porta Collina, see under Rome, coin hoards
Portraits, official, 74
Portraiture, characterized, 11, 74
Pound (libra), Roman, 28-30
Poydenot, H., collection, 260
P. P., for pater patriae, 146
Praefectus praetorio Galliarum, 60, 68-9, 193, 199
Prefectures, 49
Priscus, historian, 233
Priscus Attalus, emperor, 4, 12, 36, 192, 194, 208,
209, 222-3, 812-14
Privy marks, 56
Processio consularis, 39, 80
Procopius, 75, 233, 244
Procuratores monetae, 49, 51
Promotus, general, 112, 133
Provence, 268
PS, for pusulatum, 31, 50, 53-4
Pseudo-imperial coins, 70-1
PST, at Rome, 54
Pulcheria, empress, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 33, 75, 94, 95,
136, 138, 146, 152—4, 157, 192, 261, 436-53
Pusulatum, 50
Quadrans, 10, 39
Radagaisus, 193
Radostowo (Poland, formerly Rathstube), coin
hoard, 16, 288
GENERAL INDEX
Rathstube, see Radostowo
Ravenna (Italy), 12, 13, 48, 49, 64-5, 185, 193,
195, 214, 220, 227, 229, 253, 261, 266, 268,
269, 290; coins of Arcadius, 127-30, 272; of
Theodosius II, 149—50, 349; of Marcian, 159-—
60, 513; of Leo I, 167—8, 592; of Basiliscus,
178; of Zeno, 185—6, 188—9, 670-3; of Hon-
orius, 193—5, 198-209, 735—43; of Priscus At-
talus, 223, 814; of Constantius III, 225, 815;
of John, 227-8, 819-21; of Galla Placidia,
229-32, 817-18, 827-8; (?)829-31, 833; of
Valentinian III, 234—40, 835, 841-8, 857; of
Honoria, 242—3, 866-9; of Licinia Eudoxia,
244-5, 870-1; of Petronius Maximus, 247; of
Majorian 250-2, 877-9; of Severus III, 253-
4, 887-8; of Anthemius, 256-8, 901-3, 920;
of Olybrius, 262; of Glycerius, 263-4, 935-6;
of Julius Nepos, 266-7, 938—42; of Romulus
Augustulus, 267—70; Germanic imitations in
Gaul, 70-1, 236, 254, 450; Vandal imitations,
20-1, 71, 206-7
Ravenna, Tyche of, as coin type, 84, 173, 178, 185-
6, 267-8, 270, 618, 672—3, 682-3, 942
Ravennate Annals, 220, 227
Razgrad, see Abritus
Reggio Emilia (Italy), gold hoard, 17, 288-9
Reverses, legends and types, 78—87
Richborough (Britain), site finds and hoards, 25-6
Ricimer, 14, 80, 167, 248, 252, 253, 254, 255, 261,
263, 900
Robert, Charles, numismatist, 164, 170
Roma, as coin type, 11, 12, 82-4
Roman Empire, later, 3—6; coinage of, 9-15
Rome, city, 5, 110, 112, 118, 184, 193, 202, 229,
231, 233—4, 250, 253, 255, 262, 263, 266, 269
Rome, coin hoards: Casa delle Vestali, 22, 106,
208, 256, 258, 260, 261; Porta Collina, 22,
168, 208; Tiber bed, 16, 201, 209
Rome, mint, 11, 13, 49, 51, 65—6; coins of Arca-
dius, 102, 104—6, 109, 110, 112-17, 123, 127-
32, 269-71; of Theodosius II, 149—50; of Leo
I, 166-9, 587-8; of Zeno, 175, 186-9, 685-9;
of Honorius, 194—5, 198-209, 723-32; of
Priscus Attalus, 222-3, 812-13; of John, 227-
8, 822-3; of Galla Placidia, 231-2, 826,
(?)829-—31, 832; of Valentinian III, 234-8,
240, 849-53, 856, 858-9; of Honoria, 243; of
Licinia Eudoxia, 245; of Petronius Maximus,
247, 874; of Avitus, 248-9; of Majorian, 252,
886; of Severus III, 253—4, 895-900; of An-
themius, 256—9, 908, 915-19, 926, 928-31; of
Euphemia, 261-2, 933-4; of Olybrius, 262; of
Glycerius, 263—4; of Julius Nepos, 266, 268,
946-7; of Romulus Augustulus, 269
Rome, mint inscriptions, 51, 66; Museo Nazionale,
240
Rome, Senate, 6, 15, 184, 185, 187, 255, 282; Sen-
ate House (with altar of Victory), 82
Romulus “Augustulus,” usurper, 4, 5—6, 178, 184,
186, 266, 269-70, 949-50
Rufinus, praetorian prefect, 94, 133
Sacra Moneta, see SM
Sallust, brother of Jovinus, 220
497
Salona, 185, 263, 266; possible mint, 189
Saltholm (Denmark), coin hoard, 190
San Genesio (Italy), coin hoard, 19, 36, 37
San Lazzaro (Italy), coin hoard, 289
SC, see Index 4
Scandinavia, hoards from, 15, 176, 180, 190; see
also Hostentorp, Saltholm, Simmersted Mose
Scipio (consular scepter), 75, 186, 240
Scroll, 75
Scruple (scripulum), 29, 41
Sebastian, usurper in Gaul, 4, 192, 220, 22]
Sebastopol, 164, 174
Seltz (Germany), coin hoard, 31
Selymbria, 119
Semissis, origins and weight, 10, 12, 27, 32-3
Senate, Roman, see Rome, Senate
Serena, 192, 229
Sestertius, 10, 39
Severus III, Libius, emperor, 4, 19, 65, 160, 167,
169, 253—4, 261, 887-900; RA coins, 70
Shapwick (Britain), coin hoard, 37
Shields, designs on, 74—5, 250
Sicily, coins hoards in, see Butera, Comiso, Syracuse
Sidi-bou-Said (Libya), coin hoard, 16, 290
Sidonius Apollinaris, 57, 64, 250, 261
Signorelli, A., collection, 258
Siliqua (carat), as weight, 10, 12, 27, 29-30
Siliqua, as coin, 27, 35, 37; metrology, 37, 39; clip-
ping of, 18, 37-9, 205
Siliqua, half-, 14, 38, 39; of Arcadius, 114, 115; (?)
of Eudoxia, 134; (?) of Pulcheria, 153; of Eu-
docia, 156; of Leo I, 166, 169; of Leo II, 172-
3; of Basiliscus, 178, 618; of Zeno, 185-6,
672-3; of Honorius, 206-7; of Constantine
III, 214, 216; of Jovinus, 220; of John, 228; of
Galla Placidia, 231, 832; of Valentinian III,
238, 847-8; of Licinia Eudoxia, 245; of Sev-
erus III, 254, 899; of Anthemius, 258—9; of
Glycerius, 264; of Julius Nepos, 268, 942; Van-
dalic imitations, 39
Silver coinage, 17, 35-9
Simmersted Mose (Denmark), coin hoard, 20
Sirmium (modern Mitrovica), 49, 66—7, 95; coins
of Arcadius with SM attributed by some schol-
ars to, 100, 119-21, 161-2; of Honorius, 196—
7, 691-6, 744
Siscia (modern Sisak), 48, 49, 67, 194; coins of Ar-
cadius, 98, 99 105—6, 110, 66-7
SM, for Sacra Moneta, 53—4; other proposed inter-
pretations, 61, 66-7, 87, 119-20, 194-5,
196-7
Smithsonian Institution, 260
Socrates, historian, 134
Solidus, origins and weight, 10, 27, 32
Sofia, National Museum, 145
Somerset (Britain), coin hoards, 18, 37
Sophia, empress, 8
South Ferriby (Britain), coin hoard, 18, 37
“South Italy,” coin hoard from, 17, 249, 290
Sozomen, historian, 51, 62, 136, 147
Spain, 214, 219; see also Barcelona
Spain, coin hoards in, see Chapipi, Jerez de la Fron-
tera
Sproxton (Britain), coin hoard, 18, 37
498 INDEX 5
Star, eight-pointed, its history, 87-8, 125, 138-9,
143, 158, 213; on Western coins, 88; on Thes-
salonican coins, 88
Star, six-pointed, as form of Christogram, 257
Statues, as coin types, 78, 111, 115, 122, 134
Stilicho, 48, 63, 85, 192, 193, 281
Sucidava (Romania), coin hoards, 23
Suevi, 248
Suspended crown, see Manus Dei w. crown
Symmachus, 82
Syracuse (Sicily), coin hoard, 22
Szikancs (Hungary), coin hoard, 16, 17, 143, 145,
148, 290-1
Szilagy-Somly6 (Hungary), gold hoard, 35, 58
T, (2?) for Thessalonica, 57, 184
Tanini, H., collection, 268
Tarrasa (Spain), coin fd. at, 219
Terling (Britain), coin hoard, 37, 205
Thela, son of Odovacar, 185
Theoderic the Great, Ostrogothic king, 57, 65,
181, 184, 185, 187, 188, 263
Theoderic II, Visigothic king, 248
Theodora, empress, 8
Theodosius I, emperor, 3, 4, 5, 7, 18, 93-123 pas-
sim, 192; statues of, 112, 115
Theodosius II, emperor, 3, 4, 5, 7, 18, 94, 95, 134,
135, 136-51, 192, 194, 215, 227-8, 229, 231,
234, 238, 242, 244-6, 295-435; star on his
coins, 87—8; see also AE 2, Miliarenses, Mul-
tiples (medallions), gold
Thermantia, wife of Honorius, 6, 7, 193
Thessalonica, 13, 49, 67—8, 74, 101, 145, 227;
coins of Arcadius, 98, 99, 103—4, 105, 106,
108, 109, 110, 113, 119, 125, 144, 57-65, 72-
4, 110-12, 223, 242; of Theodosius II, 140,
142, 143, 144, 148, 288, 307, 329-31, 364-9,
390; of Marcian, 157—9, 505; of Leo I, 165,
553-9; of Basiliscus, 177, 178; of Zeno, 184,
664-9; of Honorius, 196-7, 211, 212, 213,
691-6, 704
Ticinum, see Pavia
Tipasa (Algeria), coin hoards, 23, 24, 219, 224
Tongeren (Tongres, Belgium), coin from, 22
Tournai (Belgium), coin hoard from Childeric’s
tomb, 17, 20, 290-2
Trabki Mate (Poland, formerly Klein-Tromp), coin
hoard, 16, 17, 201, 292-3
Traprain Law (Scotland), silver hoard, 20
Trau, Franz, collector, 297—8; coin sale, 239, 240
Tremissis, origins and weight, 10, 12, 27; history
and types, 33—4, 110-111
Treveri, see Trier
Tributes, 136, 138, 157
Trier (Treveri), 13, 18, 49, 68—9, 110; coins of Ar-
cadius, 116-17, 123, 128, 130, 195-200, 206
(imitation); of Theodosius II, 150-1; of Hon-
orius, 193, 194, 206; of Constantine III, 214—
15, 216, 796-802; of Jovinus, 220, 810-11; of
Sebastian, 221; of John, 227, 228; of Valenti-
nian III, 238—9; coin fd. at, 206
Triumph, 129, 130
Trophy of arms, as coin type, 78, 84, 144, 361-2
Tuddenham (Britain), coin hoard, 37
Tunisia, coin hoards in, 17, 20, 171, 293; see also
Carthage
Turin, Museo Civico, 251, 253
Turkey, coin hoards in, 23, 41, see also Ephesus, Iz-
mit
Tyche, city, see Ravenna, Tyche of
U for V, 89
Udine, collection at, 244
Ulrich-Bansa, O., collection, 151, 253, 476
Uncia, 29
Urbs Roma Felix, dating of coin series, 72, 82-3
Valence, 220
Valens, emperor, 3, 4, 5, 11, 58, 95
Valentinian I, emperor, 3, 4, 11, 15; monetary re-
forms of, 30—1, 50
Valentinian II, 4, 94-118 passim; coins of Valenti-
nian III wrongly attributed to, 235
Valentinian III, emperor, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 139,
144, 145-6, 157, 160, 193, 227, 229-31, 233-
41, 244, 250, 835-65; RV/RA coins, 70
Vandal expedition (of 468), 14, 161, 170, 177, 255,
266
Vandalic AE, coins wrongly described as, 24
Vandalic imitations, 20—1, 39, 61, 71, 206, 207
Vandals, 2, 4, 20, 193, 224, 233, 255
Vedrin (Belgium), coin hoard, 17, 185—6, 188, 189,
266, 294
Velp (Netherlands), gold hoard, 16, 35, 202, 230,
294-5
Verina, empress, wife of Leo I, 4, 7, 8, 161, 170-1,
177, 190, 263, 593-8; standing figure on coin
of Leo I, 7, 76, 164, 166, 246, 582—6; see also
AE 2
Verona, 110
Victor, usurper in Gaul, 4
Victory, altar of, see under Rome, Senate
Victory, as coin type, 11, 12, 81-2
Victory holding long cross, 12—13, 81-2
Vienna, Miinzsammlung, 35, 76, 151, 178, 183,
209, 212, 223
Vienne, 214
Vierordt sale, 223, 238, 268
Viminacium, see Kostolac
Visigoths, 5, 66, 95, 189, 193, 220-1, 229, 233;
coins attributed to, 70, 236—7, 241, 249, 251
Volo (Greece), coin hoard, 23—4, 44—5, 47, 164,
179, 180, 183
Vota celebrations and legends, 12, 81, 82, 84—5,
137-8, 148, 194
Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution, 260
Weighing of solidi, 30-1
Welzl von Wellenheim, L., collector, 264
Whorlton (Britain), coin hoard, 18
Wiczay collection, former, at Hedervar, 221, 264
Wreath, as element in coin types, 84
Wiirselen (Germany), coin hoard, 295
Xanten (Germany), coin hoard, 295
“Yale” coin hoard, 23, 44—5, 47, 164, 239
GENERAL INDEX 499
Zacha, coin hoard, 239 Zeno and Leo, Caesars, forgery of, 296
Zeccone (Italy), coin hoard, 17, 162, 295 Zeno, Apostolo, collection, 223
Zeno, emperor, 4, 5—6, 8, 9, 14-15, 161, 172-6, Zenonis, empress, 4, 8, 171, 177, 180, 627
177, 181-89, 255, 266, 267, 599-605, 628- Zonaras, historian, 155
90; large AE of, 47, 66, 74, 82, 186-7, 689; see | Zosimus, historian, 101, 102, 133
also AE 2
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11